McPherson v. Google Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 20 ), of the Court's February 1, 2018 Order dismissing the Complaint, (ECF No. 16 ), as well as the Court's February 28, 2023 Order denying Plaintiff's motion to seal this case, (ECF No. 19 ), are denied.The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedg e v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order to the Plaintiff at her address of record. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 8/21/2023. c/m (LC)

Case 2:17-cv-03418-JMA-GXB Document 21 Filed 08/21/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 107

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
RACQUEL K MCPHERSON,
Plaintiff,

For Online Publication Only

ORDER
17-cv-03418 (JMA)

-againstGOOGLE INC.,
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 20), of the Court’s February 1, 2018 Order
dismissing the Complaint, (ECF No. 16), as well as the Court’s February 28, 2023 Order denying
Plaintiff’s motion to seal this case, (ECF No. 19), are denied.
Reconsideration of a previous order by the Court is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources. In re
Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “Motions for
reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3,
which are meant to ensure the finality of decisions . . . .” Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen
E. Corp, 965 F. Supp. 2d 402, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted), aff’d, 577 F. App’x 11 (2d
Cir. 2014). A motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “must be filed no later
than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Cohen v. Jamison, No. 23-CV-1304 (LTS), 2023
WL 3412762, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2023). Further, “[a] motion brought under Local Civil
Rule 6.3 must be filed within 14 days ‘after the entry of the Court's determination of the original
motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment, within . . . (14) days after the entry
of the judgment.’” Id. at *2. “The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration

1

Case 2:17-cv-03418-JMA-GXB Document 21 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 108

will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court over looked 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) (citations
omitted). A motion to alter a judgment under Rule 59(e) “may be granted ‘only if the movant
satisfies the heavy burden of demonstrating an intervening change of controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’”
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 10 F. Supp. 3d 460, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting
Hollander v. Members of the Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of the State of N.Y., 524 F. App'x 727,
729 (2d Cir. 2013)). Indeed, a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues,
presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a
second bite at the apple. Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir.
2012) (citation omitted). Further, it is within the sound discretion of the district court whether or
not to grant a motion for reconsideration. See Gupta v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 52 F. Supp.
3d 677, 679-80 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Here, as a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s motion is brought well beyond the respective 28day or 14-day time periods given that judgment was entered on February 6, 2018, (ECF No. 17),
and the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to seal on February 23, 2023. Even if timely filed, having
examined the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has not met this exacting standard. Rather,
Plaintiff complains that the public information about this case “is having a negative effect on my
search for a weekly paying job.”

(ECF No. 20.)

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied
for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The

2

Case 2:17-cv-03418-JMA-GXB Document 21 Filed 08/21/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 109

Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order to the Plaintiff at her address
of record.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 21, 2023
Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3