The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gold, Steven M., U.S.M.J.:
During a conference held on January 27, 2012, the City Defendants requested that they be permitted to "claw back" a privileged document that they claimed they inadvertently produced to plaintiffs. After hearing from both sides, I granted the City Defendants' application. Plaintiff P.A., Jr., has moved for reconsideration of my ruling. Docket Entry 186.
A party moving for reconsideration must "point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
"The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied."
Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Moreover, a motion to reconsider should be denied "where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Id.
Plaintiff points to no controlling decisions or facts that I overlooked in my original decision. Plaintiff cites to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b), which was also raised at the conference. Docket Entry 186; Transcript of 1/27/12 Conference ("Tr.") 56, Docket Entry 185.
Counsel for City Defendants stated that the disclosure was inadvertent and she requested its return after learning of the disclosure. Tr. 55-56. In light of the volume of documents produced in this case, I am satisfied that disclosure of the document at issue was a simple mistake.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Steven M. Gold United States Magistrate Judge
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...