Shim-Larkin v. City of New York ( 2020 )

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FIL DOCH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 12/23/20 _ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Heena Shim-Larkin, Plaintiff, 16cv6099 (AJN) ~ MEMORANDUM City of New York, OPINION & ORDER Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On September 28, 2020, the Court issued an opinion denying Plaintiffs various objections to decisions by Magistrate Judge Fox regarding discovery and sanctions. Dkt. No. 666. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 13, 2020. Dkt. No. 675. As of November 20, 2020, this motion has been fully briefed. Dkt Nos. 695, 703. For the reasons explained below, that motion is DENIED. I. Discussion A motion for reconsideration should be granted only if the movant identifies “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted). It is not a “vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple.’” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). Moreover, “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court.” Corines v. Am. Physicians Ins. Tr., 769 F. Supp. 2d 584, 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Reconsideration of a previous order by the court is an ‘extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.’” RST (2005) Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 597 F. Supp. 2d 362, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). In her briefs, Plaintiff repeats her initial claims, argues that the Court overlooked her arguments and the sources she cited in support, and alleges she was treated unfairly or unequally by the Court. Dkt. No. 676, 703. However, Plaintiff identifies no new evidence or facts unknown to the Court and does not argue an intervening change in controlling law. A motion for reconsideration is not a means for “relitigating old issues” that the Court has already considered, Analytical Surveys, Inc., 684 F.3d at 52, and Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s analysis of her arguments is not a basis for reconsideration. Il. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’ s motion for reconsideration is denied. This resolves Dkt. No. 675. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). SO ORDERED. Ay ig Dated: December 23, 2020 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge