HARRINGTON v. BERGEN COUNTY et al

Filing 98

OPINION/ORDER denying 93 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 7/10/17. (DD, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BARBARA HARRINGTON,
Plaintiff,

Action No. 2:14-cv-5764 (SRC)(CLW)

v.
BERGEN COUNTY, et al.,

OPINION & ORDER

Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 93) and Defendants’ opposition thereto (ECF Nos. 95-96). Plaintiff’s motion concerns the
Court’s prior Order (ECF No. 92) denying Plaintiff’s discovery request (ECF No. 74) for want of
recency, relevance, and proportionality. The Court declined to hear oral argument pursuant to Rule
78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, for the reasons set forth below, denies the motion
for reconsideration.
Plaintiff contends that it “was a plain error of law for a Magistrate Judge, during fact
Discovery, to make a de facto evidentiary admissibility ruling that is solely within the jurisdiction
of the District Judge.” (Motion, ECF No. 93-1, at 4. 1) Plaintiff maintains that “[t]he evidence
[sought] relates to [Defendant] Molinelli having previously misused his public office as a favor to
a friend – just as in the instant lawsuit.” (Id.; Letter, ECF No. 74, at 1-2; Letter, ECF No. 82-1, at
5-6.) Plaintiff thus asks this Court to reconsider its decision and compel Defendant Molinelli “to
answer questions on issues relating to Dr. Ragi and [Defendant] Molinelli’s highly questionable
decision not to prosecute as a favor to a friend.” (Motion, ECF No. 93-1, at 8-13.)

1

References use page numbers assigned by CM/ECF.

Defendants previously argued that “Plaintiff seeks to compel discovery concerning an
unrelated matter that is the subject of an expungement order[]” and that “Plaintiff cannot
demonstrate any relevance of the requested discovery to her claims in this case, nor any good cause
or compelling need to obtain records that, by statute, are subject to strict confidentiality and, in
fact, are deemed not to exist at all as a matter of law.” (Opp., ECF No. 81, at 5.) In opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, Defendants emphasize that there is no new evidence to
support Plaintiff’s motion and that “Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with that decision does not create a
basis for the Court to reconsider its prior Order.” (Opp., ECF No. 95, at 5, 8-9.) Defendants further
assert that “Plaintiff also seemingly contends that there is an apparent need to correct an error,
pursuant to the third basis for a motion for reconsideration[, but] Plaintiff does not identify that
error by citing to authority the Court failed to consider.” (Id.)
A party moving for reconsideration must demonstrate: “1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court issued
its order; or 3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.”
Banda v. Burlington County, 263 F. App’x 182, 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Max’s Seafood Café v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)); L. Civ R. 7.1(i) (party requesting reconsideration
must “concisely” set forth “the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge
or Magistrate Judge has overlooked”). A party’s “mere disagreement” with the Court’s decision
does not warrant reconsideration. Yurecko v. Port Auth. Trans. Hudson Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d
606, 609 (D.N.J. 2003). The moving party bears a heavy burden that cannot be met through
“recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original
decision.” G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990) (internal citation omitted);
Dymnioski v. Crown Equip. Corp., No. 11-3696, 2012 WL 3095333, at *1 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012)

-2-

(A “motion for reconsideration [is not] an opportunity to ask the Court to rethink what it has
already thought through.”).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted. Rather, Plaintiff
restates arguments previously submitted while criticizing the Court’s earlier ruling as one
prematurely pertaining to admissibility. Rule 26 plainly contemplates discovery subject to
relevance and proportionality and the Court found Plaintiff’s discovery request to be lacking in
both respects. In particular, the Court finds the discovery to be burdensome and speculative.
Indeed, although she recounts factual allegations at great length, Plaintiff offers no case law
addressing discovery relating to a public official’s alleged prior misuse of power and, similarly,
no authority to support such a broad application of Rule 26 in conjunction with the Federal Rules
of Evidence. Moreover, Plaintiff offers no authority to support her apparent argument that the
Court committed legal error and no timeline addressing Defendants’ contention that no new
evidence has materialized. The Court, therefore, denies Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS on this 10th day of July, 2017,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 93) is denied; and
ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 93.

s/Cathy L. Waldor
CATHY L. WALDOR
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-