United States District Court, S.D. New York
As Amended February 5, 2015.
For Jiangsu Steampship Co., Ltd., Petitioner: Michael E. Unger, LEAD ATTORNEY, Freehill, Hogan & Mahar, LLP, New York, NY.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION AND UNSEALING FILINGS
COLLEEN McMAHON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a sealed decision and order denying the petition of Jiangsu Steamship Company, Ltd. (" Jiangsu") to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (" Decision and Order, " Docket #4.) In that decision I provided Jiangsu with " ten days to explain why this court should not release the entire decision, including the names of the parties, onto the public record." (Decision and Order at 14.) Jiangsu has filed a memorandum arguing that the Court's decision should remain under seal and seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision. (Docket #6.)
For the reasons stated below, the Court declines to reconsider the Decision and Order. In addition, both this opinion and the Decision and Order will be unsealed and available on the public record.
I. Jiangsu's Request for Reconsideration is Denied
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate " an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." See Doe v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983). The decision to grant or deny the motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court, especially when there has been no appellate review of the prior decision. Mina Invest. Holdings Ltd. v. Lefkowitz, 184 F.R.D. 245, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
The Court's review " is narrow and applies only to already-considered issues; new arguments and issues are not to be considered." Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F.Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). A motion for reconsideration " is not a substitute for appeal and may be granted only where the Court has overlooked matters or controlling decisions which might have materially influenced the earlier decision." Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
B. Reconsideration is Denied Because Jiangsu Has Not Demonstrated That it is Warranted
Jiangsu's motion for reconsideration is denied because Jiangsu has not established any of the four criteria for reconsideration.
First, Jiangsu does not point to any newly available evidence justifying reconsideration. Although Jiangsu has provided a few more details about the attachment proceedings it intends to pursue, that is information that Jiangsu could have provided to the Court originally. There is nothing " new" about it.
Second, Jiangsu points to no change in controlling law. Jiangsu has called the Court's attention to two opinions applying the Second Circuit's " adjudicative" proceeding requirement for § 1782 petitions. Lancaster Factoring Co. v. Mangone, 90 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1996); In re Application of Hill, No. M19-117, 2005 WL 1330769 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2005). But both opinions are over eight years old, so there has been no " change" in the law in the last month. I would not be surprised to learn that Jiangsu was unaware of these decisions when it filed its petition, as Jiangsu did not discuss the Second Circuit's requirement that § 1782 discovery could only be invoked ...