Castillo et al v. Time Warner Cable

Filing 50

ORDER: TWC's Motion for reconsideration dated August 23, 2011 is Denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this motion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on October 24, 2011) (mov)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: October 24, 20 I I

JUAN CASTILLO and RATAKIT BOONNAK,
Plaintiffs
09 Civ. 7644 (PAC)
- against ­
ORDER
TIME WARNER CABLE OF NEW YORK CITY,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY , United States Di strict Judge:
Defendant Time Warner Cable of New York City (TWC) moves for reconsideration of
the Court 's Opinion and Order dated August 9, 2011, denying TWC's motion for summary
judgment. The Court held that there were genuine issues of material fact with respect to
plaintiffs' claims of a hostile work environment; disparate treatment and retaliation
TWC moves to reconsider on the grounds that plaintiffs' complaints are about ordinary
work place incidents, not actionable discrimination and retaliation. According to TWC,
plaintiffs' laundry list of what TWC denominates as routine employment actions have obfuscated
the actual evidence in this case. The Court was taken in by this obfuscation and it "overlooked
evidence .. . that may have affected the outcome of the Court's opinion" (Memo in Support of
Motion to Reconsider pg 1).
TWC's motion papers drone on about evidence which was overlooked , mistaken, or
misunderstood. Plaintiffs' assertions are said to lack credibility; this can be inferred Irom the
variations in their assertions from complaint, to a deposition, to their rebuttals to TWC' s motion
for summary judgment. Generally the motion to reconsider is a rehash ofTWC's arguments it
made in support of its motion for summary judgment.

The Court recognizes that TWC has numerous legal and factual defenses; but that is not
the issue which the Court was deciding. While TWC appears to be convinced of the merits of its
position, ajury might very well disagree. There are genuine issues of fact which plaintiffs' are
entitled to present to a jury for consideration.
The Court grants reconsideration of its prior orders only in extraordinary circumstances.
Otherwise the "interest of final ity and conservation of scarce judicial resources" would be at risk.
Hinds County, Miss. v. Wachovia Bank N.A., 700 F. Supp. 2d 378, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). A
motion for reconsideration is available if there has been an intervening change in the law, or new
evidence becomes available, or a clear error has been made, or the prior opinion creates a
manifest injustice. Hinds County Id at 207.
None of these grounds are present here. TWC repeats the same arguments it made
previously, only in a more strident tone. There is no clear error and no manifest injustice. The
worst thing that will happen here is a jury trial; where TWC can make all the factual arguments it
made to the Court.
On October 11 ,20 II TWC submitted a recent Second Circuit decision Rojas v. Roman
Catholic Diocese of Rochester 2011 WL 4552460 (2d Cir Oct 4,20 11). The Second Circuit
affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant in an employment
discrimination case. While summary judgment was granted in Rochester, that does not mean it
should be granted here. Notwithstanding TWC 's argument that the Court "overlooked" its
arguments (the real objection is that the Court did not accept its argument) the presence of
asserted variations in plaintiffs' recitation of their claims does not foreclose the presence of
genuine issues of material fact.

2

TWC ' s Motion for reconsideration dated August 23, 2011 is Denied. The Clerk of Court
is directed to terminate this motion .

Dated: New York, New York
October 24, 2011
SO ORDERED

,&1£$

United States District Judge

3