Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. ( 2024 )

Vireras earl DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee eX DATE FILED:_ 5/24/2024 ARLENE DELGADO, Plaintiff, 19-CV-11764 (AT) (KHP) -against- ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., RECONSIDERATION TRUMP FOR AMERICA, INC., SEAN SPICER, individually, REINCE PRIEBUS, individually, STEPHEN BANNON, individually, Defendants. ~----------------------------------------------------------------X KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter asking the Court to reconsider its Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to her subpoena on Fox Corp./Fox News Network, LLC (the “Motion to Compel”). (ECF Nos. 313, 322.) On May 22, 2024, counsel for Fox News Network, LLC and Fox Corporation (collectively, “Fox”) filed its response, objecting to the Plaintiff's request for reconsideration. (ECF No. 325.) DISCUSSION Local Rule 6.3 governs reconsideration, which is “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)(internal citation omitted). The Rule aims to “prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.’”” SEC v. Ashbury Capital Partners, L.P., No. 00 Civ. 7898, 2001 WL 604044, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2001) (quoting Carolco Pictures, Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F. Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)). Courts must “narrowly construe and strictly apply Local Rule 6.3, so as to avoid duplica�ve rulings on previously considered issues, and to prevent the rule from being used as a subs�tute for appealing a final judgment.” Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 298 F.R.D. 134, 137 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Accordingly, the Second Circuit has held that the standard for gran�ng a mo�on to reconsider “is strict, and reconsidera�on will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- maters, 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). Reconsidera�on is jus�fied where the moving party demonstrates “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injus�ce.” Henderson v. Metro. Bank & Tr. Co., 502 F. Supp. 2d 372, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). A mo�on for reconsidera�on should be denied “where the moving party seeks solely to reli�gate an issue already decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Plain�ff has not pointed to controlling decisions or informa�on that the Court overlooked in rendering its prior Order denying the Mo�on to Compel. As the Court previously explained, the informa�on Plain�ff seeks in the Fox subpoena is overbroad and not propor�onal to the needs of the case. Plain�ff asserts that she has presented new informa�on jus�fying reconsidera�on, namely, that during the deposi�on of Kellyanne Conway, Ms. Conway suggested Plain�ff could have obtained a job in media. Such informa�on does not cons�tute “new evidence,” and fails to demonstrate that the informa�on sought in the Fox subpoena was relevant or propor�onal to the needs of the case, rather than unduly burdensome on a non-party. Accordingly, Plain�ff’s mo�on for reconsidera�on concerning the Mo�on to Compel is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (2 fl Hf £4 DATED: New York, New York Ketharice May 24, 2024 KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge