Igidi v. Connecticut Department of Correction

Filing 98

ORDER denying 95 defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 9/10/15. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
EMANUEL IGIDI,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Defendant.

CASE NO.

3:13cv1338(RNC)

ORDER
Pending

before

reconsideration

the

(doc.

court

#95)

of

is
the

the

defendant's

court's

motion

recommended

denying the defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. #93).

for

ruling

The motion

is DENIED.
The standard for granting motions for reconsideration is
strict.
1995).

Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.
The grounds justifying reconsideration are "an intervening

change or 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
Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013).

In its motion, defendant

sets forth deficiencies in the plaintiff's discovery responses
discovered after oral argument on the motion1 and asks the court

1

As indicated in the recommended ruling, plaintiff's counsel
emailed discovery responses to defense counsel at 6 a.m. on the day
of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. (Doc. #93 at 7.)

either to dismiss the case or modify the recommended ruling adding
additional relief.

Reconsideration is not warranted because the

court's ruling considered the fact that the plaintiff's compliance
was incomplete, although at the time, neither the defendant nor the
court knew the extent of the deficiencies.

(Doc. #93 at 8.)

In the alternative, even if the court were to grant the motion
for reconsideration, it would nonetheless adhere to its ruling.
The court's ruling was based on the information before it at the
time. To modify the decision based on subsequent information would
confuse an already over-complicated record.

As to defendant's

concern that it is without a remedy, the defendant has a court
order compelling discovery which remains in effect.

(Doc. #75.)

The defendant is not foreclosed from another application for
relief.

Regarding defendant's complaint that plaintiff has yet to

comply with the court's order imposing sanctions, counsel are
directed to, inter alia, Local Rule 16(g), which addresses an
attorney's

failure

sanctions.

See Local Rule 16(g).

SO

ORDERED

at

to

comply with

Hartford,

a

final

Connecticut

order

this

of

10th

monetary

day

September, 2015.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

2

of