United States District Court, S.D. New York
For Plaintiffs: David Boies, Esq. Mary Boies, Esq., Lee S. Wolosky, Esq., Steven I. Froot, Esq., Marilyn C. Kunstler, Esq., Joseph W. Dunn, Esq., Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY.
For Intervenors: Robert Joseph Tolchin, Esq., Aalok J. Karambelkar, Esq., The Berkman Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, NY.
For Defendant: Mitchell R. Berger, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP (DC), Washington, D.C.; Lanier Saperstein, Esq., William G. Primps, Esq., Neil McDonell, Esq., Eric Epstein, Esq., Daniel Goldberger, Esq., H. Alex Iliff, Esq.,Geoffrey Sant, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP, New York, NY.
For the State of Israel: Stewart D. Aaron, Esq., John B. Bellinger, III, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, New York, NY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Judge.
In an Opinion and Order on July 21, 2014 (" July 21 Order" ), I granted Israel's motion to quash a deposition subpoena served on Uzi Shaya, a former Israeli national security officer. Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the July 21
Order. For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion is denied.
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION STANDARD
" The standard for granting ... a motion [for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can 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. Reconsideration of a court's previous order is " an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources."  Typical grounds for reconsideration include " an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Plaintiffs have not pointed to any new or overlooked facts, intervening changes in law, or any realistic possibility of manifest injustice. Instead, plaintiffs' motion rehashes arguments ...