Filing 30

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 1/27/2017. (km)

Download PDF
RE c E iv ED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JIAU 20n 2 7 11 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY "" NOT FOR PUBLICATION Al 8:.3U WtLUAM T. WALSH LAWRENCE B. EBERT, REBECCA A. VARES-EBERT, M CLERK Civ. No. 15-7331 Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM ORDER TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON, MAYOR KELLY A. YAEDE (in her official and individual capacity), JOHN DOE (I}, and JOHN DOE (II}, Defendants. THOMPSON. U.S.D.J. This matter appears before the Court upon Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and motion for certification for interlocutory appeal. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiffsinthis case originally appealed a _dedslon of the Maiistrate Judge to this Court. (ECF No. 18). That appeal was denied, and Plaintiffs. filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial in conjunction with a I motion for certification for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). (ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23). Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motions. (ECF No. 27).; I II I · A timelyrriotio~fot'reconsiderationpursu~fto Local Civil Rule 7.l(i) may only be . . . ·. -· I granted upon a finding of at least one of the following grounds: "(l) an intervening change in the I' 1· , controlling law has occurre.d;.{2~ e_vidence not previously: ~~ail~bl~ has becom~ avail,~bJe; or (3) it_ is necessary to correct a clear error oflaw or prevent manifest injustice." Database America, - . Inc. v. Bellsoulh Advertising & Pub. Corp., 825 F. Supp.1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993). · · · · Reconsideration is ari '~e~traordinary remedy'' that is rarely granted. Brackett v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 22303078, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003) (internal citations omitted). "A party seeking 1 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) (citation omitted). In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the high bar required for reconsideration. Plaintiffs argue that the Court applied an incorrect standard in deciding their appeal, overlooked certain factual issues, and committed clear error oflaw in its analysis. However, the Court is not persuaded that it applied an incorrect standard in ruling on Plaintiffs' appeal. Nor is the Court persuaded that it overlooked any dispositive factual matters or committed a clear error of law in deciding Plaintiffs' appeal. As a result, reconsideration is not warranted here. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) imposes three criteria for the district coUrt's exercise of discretion to grant a certification for interlocutory appeal. "The order must (1) involve a controlling question · oflaw, (2) offer substantial grol.lnd for difference of opinion as to its correctness, and (3) if appeale~ immediately materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 754 (3d Cir. 1974). Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that interlocutory appeal is warranted here. An interlocutory appeal regarding the legal standard that a district court applies in reviewing a magistrate judge's discovery order will not materially adVance the termination o~litigation in any way. Therefore; •·· - IT IS, on this !JJ:.. day of January, 2017, .: .ORDEREDthat·:P-r~inttffs~~.:-Motion for Rec~hsideratforiand Motfori fot Certification for ._. .. . . . -. Interfocutory Appeal (ECF Nci:~ 2~):-are· DENIED .. · 2

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?