B.H. et al v. City Of New York et al

Filing 363

ORDER denying 337 Motion for Reconsideration. See attached Order. Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Steven M. Gold on 1/14/2014. (Gold, Steven)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
DESTINY BRUNO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-againstORDER
10-CV-210 (RRM) (SMG)
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
Gold, S., United States Magistrate Judge:
Defendants move for reconsideration of a ruling I made during a conference held on
November 20, 2013.1 The challenged ruling concerns discovery with respect to a report issued
by the ACLU and NYCLU entitled “Criminalizing the Classroom” (“the Report”). Plaintiffs
have indicated that, if this case proceeds to trial, they intend to offer the Report as evidence that
defendants were on notice of the constitutional violations alleged in the complaint. Tr. of Sept.
16, 2013, Docket Entry 316, at 34-35. I held a conference on November 20, 2013, at which there
was discussion of a ruling I had previously made granting defendants discovery of the underlying
materials relied on by the ACLU and NYCLU as support for the factual assertions in the Report.
During that conference, however, I denied defendants’ further application for discovery of all
documents generated “in any way relating to the report.” Tr. at 25-26. Defendants now seek
reconsideration of this latter ruling.

1

The relevant motion papers are as follows: Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion for Reconsideration, Docket Entry 338 (“Def. Mem.”); Defendants’ Letter
dated December 6, 2013, enclosing the transcript reflecting the challenged ruling, Docket Entry
339 (“Tr.”); American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union’s
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, Docket Entry
346 (“Opp. Mem.”); and Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion for
Reconsideration, Docket Entry 349 (“Reply Mem.”).

A party moving for reconsideration must “point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked – matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the
conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
A motion for reconsideration may not, however, “be used as a vehicle to advance new theories or
adduce new evidence in response to the court’s rulings.” Chin v. U.S. Postal Service, 2009 WL
3174144, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “The standard
for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied.” Shrader, 70
F.3d at 257. Moreover, a motion to reconsider should be denied “where the moving party seeks
solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Id.; see also Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Defendants have failed to point to any controlling law or relevant facts I overlooked
when I issued the ruling they now seek to challenge. Rather, they make the same argument in
support of reconsideration now that they made in support of their discovery application on
November 20, 2013: that investigative material not included in the Report would demonstrate
bias and that it was therefore reasonable for defendants not to respond to the Report. Compare
Tr. at 25 with Def. Mem. at 3 and Def. Reply at 1.
Even if I were considering defendants’ application on its merits for the first time, I would
deny the broader discovery they seek. If defendants’ failure to respond to the Report is relevant
at all, what would be pertinent is that they believed the Report lacked objectivity and reliability
and the reasons for that belief, not any new information about the objectivity of the Report that
might be developed in discovery. Moreover, any inference of bias drawn from information not
relied upon in preparing the Report would be highly subjective. Thus, the discovery defendants
seek is of limited, if any, relevance. Finally, producing the discovery defendants seek would
require substantial time and effort; the ACLU and NYCLU state that more than 100 hours has

2

already been spent in connection with production of the reliance materials. Laroche Decl., ¶ 4,
Docket Entry 346-1. I therefore conclude that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
For all these reasons, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/
Steven M. Gold
United States Magistrate Judge
Brooklyn, New York
January 14, 2014
.

U:\smg current docs\B.H. Mot for Reconsideration.docx

3