WAHAB v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying Motion for Reconsideration, Motion terminated: 76 MOTION for Reconsideration OF LETTER ORDER DATED MARCH 15. 2016 (ECF 75) DENYING PLAINTIFF DISCOVERY filed by ATIYA WAHAB. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 6/20/2016. (km)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ATIYA WAHAB,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY; NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION; STEVEN MAYBURY; GWEN
ZERVAS; PAM LYONS; DEBORAH
FIGUEROA (in their individual official
capacities) and JOHN DOES 1-5 (being
agent, servants and employees of
defendants as a continuing investigation
may reveal who are fictitiously named
because their true identities are
unknown)
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-6613 (FLW)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
BONGIOVANNI, U.S.M.J.,
I.
Introduction
This matter has been opened to the Court upon Motion by Plaintiff, Atiya Wahab
(hereinafter “Plaintiff”). [Docket Entry No. 76]. Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of this Court’s
March 15, 2016 Letter Order denying Plaintiff’s letter application requesting discovery of
Identifying Characteristics (Sex, Race, etc.) for the individuals who the defendants transferred into
the Bureau of Inspection and Review (hereinafter “BIR”). Defendants have filed in response.
[Docket Entry No. 77]. The Court decided this motion without oral argument pursuant to L. Civ.
R. 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request is denied.
II.
Background and Procedural History
Plaintiff’s original Complaint was filed on October 19, 2012; Plaintiff’s most recent
Amended Complaint was filed on June 14, 2015, bringing three counts against all defendants that
include Violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, Violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e to -17), and Violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights
Act (N.J.S. § 10:6-1 to -2). [See, Docket Entry No. 1, Pl.’s Compl.; see, Docket Entry No. 47 at
14-16, Pl.’s Am. Compl.]. On March 3, 2016, the parties were instructed to update the Court on
discovery by March 7, 2016. [See, Docket Entry No. 74, Letter Order]. The parties met and
conferred on March 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 11th to resolve all outstanding issues pertaining to the privilege
logs belonging to the Department of Environmental Protection and the State of New Jersey.
[Docket Entry No. 75 at 1, Def.’s March 11, 2016 Email Correspondence Letter]. The parties also
confirmed that all items requested by Plaintiff at depositions were provided on November 25, 2014
as result of the second survey, which included the resumes of the individuals transferred into the
BIR in late 2011 and early 2012. [Id.]. The single issue that remained for the Court to consider
was Plaintiff’s discovery request for the information identifying sex, race, etc. maintained by the
State Defendants for Equal Employment Opportunity (hereinafter “EEO”) compliance purposes.
[Docket Entry No. 75 at 1-2, Pl.’s March 12, 2016 Email Correspondence Letter]. The Court
denied Plaintiff’s request. [Docket Entry No. 76].
III.
Arguments
In her moving papers, Plaintiff simply argues that the Court “has deprived Plaintiff of the
benefit of the McDonnell Douglas test,” in which the burden of proof shifts to the Defendant(s) to
dispute a claim in cases when the Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination1.
1
In order to establish a prima facie, a plaintiff must establish that: (i) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (ii)
the plaintiff was qualified for the positon; (iii) despite being qualified, the plaintiff was subject to adverse action;
and (iv) the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of plaintiff’s qualifications and treated similarly
qualified persons outside the plaintiff’s class differently. [Docket Entry No. 76 at 1, Document 76-1: Pl.’s Br. for
Mot. for Recons., March 24, 2016 (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973))].
[Docket Entry No. 76 at 1, Document 76-1: Pl.’s Br. for Mot. for Recons.]. The Court has difficulty
discerning what the nature of the benefit the Court has deprived Plaintiff of, and therefore turns to
Plaintiff’s original request for discovery. There, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants should be
required to produce the identifying characteristics information because it is “difficult—if not
impossible” to establish that the State treated similarly situated individuals outside Plaintiff’s
protected class without the information identifying their race, gender, etc.. [Docket Entry No. 75
at 2, Pl.’s March 12, 2016 Email Correspondence Letter].
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s reliance on McDonnell Douglas is misplaced and does
not guarantee a right to access the information that Plaintiff seeks. Defendants also argue that EEO
compliance information is confidential under N.J.A.C. 4A:1-2.2(a) and Executive Orders 9, 11
and 26. [Docket Entry No. 77 at 2, Def.’s Br. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Recons., Apr. 4, 2016].
Additionally, Defendants cite Tuno v. NWC Warranty Corp. and claim that Plaintiff’s discovery
request is purely speculative and falls outside the allowable scope of discovery permitted by Fed.
R. Civ. Proc. 26. [Id. at 3].
IV.
Analysis
"[R]econsideration is an extraordinary remedy, that is granted ‘very sparingly.’” Brackett
v. Ashcroft, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21312 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003) (Martini). The District Court has
generally adopted the language of the Third Circuit stating that: "[the] purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Durand v. FedEx, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3066 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2015) (Martini) (citing
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. den., 476 U.S. 1171 (1986)).
Generally, there are three grounds of relief for motions of consideration: "(1) an intervening change
in controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3)
it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Carmichael v.
Everson, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11742 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004) (Cavanaugh). In other words,
motions for reconsideration only succeed when there are factual matters or precedent of law that
were “overlooked” by the Court, and the consideration of these overlooked facts or precedent
might have reasonably led the Court to a different conclusion. Scott v. IBM Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 17979 (D.N.J. Nov. 29, 2000) (Simandle).
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is not to have “a means of having a second
bite at the proverbial apple.” United States v. DeLaurentis, 83 F. Supp. 2d 455, 474 n.2 (D.N.J.)
(Orlofsky), vac. 230 F.3d 659 (3d Cir. 2000). This Court has made clear that evidence a party
could have presented at the time of its initial motion will not be entertained by the Court. Damiano
v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 623, 636 (D.N.J. 1997) (Simandle). Moreover,
this Court has demonstrated that it will not entertain new legal argument submitted in a motion for
reconsideration when the argument could have been presented in the original motion. Speeney v.
Rutgers, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9554, 4-5 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2007) (Cavanaugh). Mere disagreement
with a court’s decision is not within the procedural function of a motion for reconsideration, rather,
it is a matter dealt within the normal appellate process. Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron
U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988) (Wolin).
Plaintiff’s motion does not fall within the narrow standard for which reconsideration is
granted. Plaintiff has not cited the occurrence of any change of controlling law or presented any
evidence that was previously unavailable; nor does Plaintiff argue that there was a clear error of
law that produced a prejudicial effect. Rather, Plaintiff relies on essentially the same argument and
cites precedent that was presented in their original motion for discovery of the EEO information.
[Docket Entry No. 75 at 2, Pl.’s March 12, 2016 Email Correspondence Letter (citing McDonnell
Douglas and stating that the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit requiring Defendants to produce the
EEO compliance information)]. The Court has already considered Plaintiff’s argument when it
denied Plaintiff’s initial request for Defendant’s EEO compliance records. As Plaintiff has raised
essentially the same argument in the instant motion, the Court will not allow the Plaintiff a second
opportunity to raise the same contention that was made in the initial discovery request.
V.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court does not find any grounds to grant Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. An appropriate order
follows.
IT IS on this 20th day of June, 2016
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk’s office shall terminate Docket Entry No. 76.
S/Tonianne J. Bongiovanni
HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?