PRALL v. BOCCHINI et al
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/22/2011. (dmr)(n.m.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
TORMU E. PRALL,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 10-1228 (JBS/KMW)
v.
JOSEPH L. BOCCHINI, JR., et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Tormu Prall's
emergency motion for reconsideration of this court's order
granting the Defendants' motion to seal [Docket Item 38] and
motion to compel the Defendants to serve the Plaintiff with their
responsive papers. [Docket Item 43.]
1.
The Court finds as follows:
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs the Court’s review of
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
Rule 7.1(i) requires the
moving party to set forth the factual matters or controlling
legal authorities it believes the Court overlooked when rendering
its initial decision.
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
To prevail on a motion
for reconsideration, the movant must show:
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when
the court . . . [rendered the judgment in question]; or
(3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
to prevent manifest injustice.
Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc., v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Tehan v. Disability Management
Services, Inc., 111 F. Supp. 2d 542, 549 (D.N.J. 2000).
"A party
seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with
the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and
arguments considered by the court before rendering its original
decision fails to carry the moving party's burden." G-69 v.
Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990).
2.
The Plaintiff does not argue in his motion for
reconsideration that the Court applied the wrong legal standard,
that new evidence is available, that there has been an
intervening change in the law or that the Court overlooked any
factual matters that were properly before the Court on the
Defendants' motion to seal.
Rather, the Plaintiff argues that as
a result of the motion to seal, he was not served with the
exhibits.
3.
The Court must emphasize that the order to seal protects
the exhibits, which contain Plaintiff's confidential medical
records, from public disclosure.
See Loc. Civ. R. 5.3(a)("This
rule shall govern any request by a party to seal, or otherwise
restrict public access to any materials filed with the Court. .
.")(emphasis added).
This Court's order to seal these exhibits
at issue has no effect on a party's right of access.
As a party
to this matter, the Plaintiff is entitled to these exhibits.
2
4.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
the court's order to seal is denied as the Plaintiff's issue
regarding service of the exhibits is not a proper basis for
reconsideration.
5.
The Plaintiff next moves the Court to compel the
Defendants to serve their responsive papers, motion to seal and
exhibits as he has not received them.
In their opposition
papers, the Defendants maintain that they served the Plaintiff
with a copy of their responsive papers, motion to seal and the
exhibits by regular mail.
The Defendants have agreed to serve
these papers on the Plaintiff again by hand delivery.
6.
Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiff's motion
to compel service and Defendants have until Monday, December 5,
2011, to serve the Plaintiff with copies of their response papers
to the order to show cause, motion to seal and corresponding
exhibits by hand delivery, if they have not already done so.
November 22, 2011
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?