EBERT et al v. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON et al

Filing 30

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

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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