Rodriguez v. Administration for Childrens Services et al

Filing 188

ORDER re 186 Letter filed by P.A., Jr: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. See attached Order. In the future, applications seeking relief from the court should be filed as motions but may remain in letter format. So Ordered by Chief Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 2/16/2012. (O'Connor, Erin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x
JENNIFER RODRIGUEZ, and P.A., Jr.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-against:
:
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, :
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x
GOLD, STEVEN M., U.S.M.J.:

ORDER
10-CV-4661 (JG)

During a conference held on January 27, 2012, the City Defendants requested that they be
permitted to “claw back” a privileged document that they claimed they inadvertently produced to
plaintiffs. After hearing from both sides, I granted the City Defendants’ application. Plaintiff
P.A., Jr., has moved for reconsideration of my ruling. Docket Entry 186.
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).
“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.
Plaintiff points to no controlling decisions or facts that I overlooked in my original
decision. Plaintiff cites to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b), which was also raised at the
conference. Docket Entry 186; Transcript of 1/27/12 Conference (“Tr.”) 56, Docket Entry 185.
Counsel for City Defendants stated that the disclosure was inadvertent and she requested its
return after learning of the disclosure. Tr. 55-56. In light of the volume of documents produced

in this case, I am satisfied that disclosure of the document at issue was a simple mistake.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

/s/
Steven M. Gold
United States Magistrate Judge
Brooklyn, New York
February 16, 2012

U:\eoc 2012\rodriguez 021612.docx

2