Alston v. Cahill et al

Filing 137

ORDER denying 123 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/21/09. (Turner, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT IRA ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. JASON CAHILL, ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : : :

CASE NO. 3:07CV473(RNC)

RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION By order dated December 5, 2008, the court denied the plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery. (See doc. #122.) plaintiff sought to reopen discovery based on the alleged inadequacy of his former attorney's discovery efforts. court, citing cases holding that a party is bound by his attorney's conduct, held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause for reopening discovery at this late stage. Now pending before the court is the plaintiff's Motion Plaintiff explains that the The The

for Reconsideration, doc. #123.

information he seeks to discover is pertinent information needed for litigation of his claims. The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is "strict." 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., "The only permissible grounds

on which to grant a motion for reconsideration are: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a

clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice."

Martin v.

Dupont Flooring Sys., 3:01 CV 2189(SRU), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9373, *3 (D. Conn. May 25, 2004)(internal citations omitted). The plaintiff has not established grounds for the court to reconsider its prior order. denied. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 21st day of January, 2009. _______________/s/____________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge The motion for reconsideration is

2