Go v. The Rockefeller University, et al

Filing 146

OPINION AND ORDER: The only aspect of my March 9 Order which required action on the part of plaintiff was the provision at page 25which directed her to show cause by April 20, 2012 why she believed the Rockefeller defendants should be directed to res tore certain backup tapes. In light of her health issues which are well known to defendants and myself, I am willing to give plaintiff an additional fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to attempt to make such a showing.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 5/9/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
ROSITA C. GO,

:
Plaintiff,

-against-

:
:

ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY,
et al.,

04 Civ. 4008 (JSR)(HBP)

:
:

Defendants.
:
-----------------------------------X
ROSITA C. GO,

:
Plaintiff,

-against-

:
:
:

ROBERTA MALONEY,
et al.,

06 Civ. 1825 (JSR)(HBP)
OPINION
AND ORDER

:
Defendants.
:
-----------------------------------X

PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

On or about April 30, 2012, the pro se plaintiff
submitted a document entitled "Request for Extension of Response
to Opnion and Order filed March 9, 2012."

In its entirety, this

document reads:
Your Honor,
This is a request for an extension of time to
submit plaintiff's response to your Opinion and Order
filed on March 9, 2012. I am fully aware that this

response is past deadline, however the overwhelming
work involve[d] has not lessen[ed] a bit and I continue
to battle with my medical condition.
I pray that your Honor will understand this is a
reasonable albeit late request.
Thank you.
I am not entirely sure what relief plaintiff is seeking
by this request.
To the extent the application can be considered an
application for an extension of time to seek reconsideration, I
deny the application.

A motion for reconsideration lies only

when "there has been an intervening change of controlling law,"
"new evidence has become available," or "there is a need to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."

Virgin

Airways v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.
1992); accord Tatum v. City of N.Y., 06 Civ. 4290 (BSJ)(GWG),
2009 WL 976840 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2009) (Jones, D.J.); In re
Refco Capital Mkts., Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., 06 Civ.
643 (GEL), 07 Civ. 8686 (GEL), 07 Civ. 8688 (GEL), 2008 WL
4962985 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008) (Lynch, then D.J., now
Cir. J.).

A motion for reconsideration is also appropriate when
the Court has "overlooked controlling decisions or
factual matters that were put before the Court on the
underlying motion," Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 186 F.R.D.
322, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), and which, had they been
considered, "might reasonably have altered the result

2

before the court." Consol. Gold Fields v. Anglo Am.
Corp., 713 F. Supp. 1457, 1476 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Yurman Design Inc. v. Chaindom Enters., Inc., 99 Civ. 9307 (JFK),
2003 WL 22047849 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2003) (Keenan, D.J.);
accord In re Refco Capital Mkts., Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec.
Litig., supra, 2008 WL 4962985 at *1.

In addition to these

substantive requirements, a motion for reconsideration must be
made within fourteen (14) days of the decision in issue.

Local

Civil Rule 6.3.
The principal problem with plaintiff's application is
that she doesn't identify any argument concerning my March 9,
2012 Order that would be cognizable on a motion for reconsideration.

That Order resolved a number of discovery disputes, most,

if not all of which, are matters of discretion.

Thus, it is

extremely unlikely that there are controlling facts or precedents
which I overlooked and which would mandate a different result.
Although I appreciate that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and
that she suffers from a number of very significant health issues,
I cannot, in fairness, give her an open-ended extension of time
to seek reconsideration when she does not identify any error in
my March 9, 2012 Order that could
for reconsideration.

3

properly be raised by a motion

The only aspect of my March 9 Order which required
action on the part of plaintiff was the provision at page 25
which directed her to show cause by April 20, 2012 why she
believed the Rockefeller defendants should be directed to restore
certain backup tapes.

In light of her health issues which are

well known to defendants and myself, I am willing to give plain­
tiff an additional fourteen (14) days from the date of this
Order to attempt to make such a showing.
Dated:

New York, New York
May 9, 2012

SO ORDERED

Z~MAN/~
United States Magistrate Judge

Copies mailed to:
Ms. Rosita C. Go
61 Bayhill Drive, #3D
Bridgeville, pennsylvania

15017

Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
Proskauer Rose, LLP
11 Times Square
New York, New York 10036-8299
Lisa M. Trocchio, Esq.
Lori D. Bauer, Esq.
Jackson Lewis, LLP
59 Maiden Lane
New York, New York 10038

4

Michael J. Gudzy, Esq.
Jenny M. Park, Esq.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
150 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Lori R. Semlies, Esq.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
3 Gannett Drive
White Plains, New York 10604
Adam G. Guttell, Esq.
Michael A. Sonkin, Esq.
Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP
220 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017

5