Capitol Records, LLC v. Redigi Inc.

Filing 155

ORDER denying 149 Motion for Reconsideration re 148 Memorandum & Opinion. Because the Individual Defendants simply rehash the same arguments advanced in their briefing in support of their motion to dismiss, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Individual Defendants' motion is DENIED. As stated in the Court's September 22, 2014 Order, the parties are to submit a joint letter detailing the status of any remaining discovery disputes by October 22, 2014. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 10/15/2014) (tro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDSSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:~~~-o---.~~

DATE FILED: 10/;~!do1t1
7

CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
12-cv-95 (RJS)
ORDER

-v-

REDIG! INC., JOHN OSSENMACHER, and
LARRY RUDOLPH,
Defendants.

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge:
On September 16, 2014, Defendants John Ossenmacher and Larry Rudolph (the
"Individual Defendants") filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 150) of the Court's
September 2, 2014 Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 148) (the "Order") denying the Individual
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims for copyright infringement. For the reasons
discussed below, the Individual Defendants' motion is denied.
"A motion for reconsideration ... 'will generally be denied unless the moving party can
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."' Atl. Recording Corp. v.

BCD Music Grp., Inc., No. 08 Civ. 5201 (WHP), 2009 WL 2046036, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 15,
2009) (quoting Shrader v. CSXTransp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). "Alternatively, a
motion for reconsideration may be granted to 'correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."'

Banco de Seguros Del Estado v. Mut. Marine Offices, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 427, 428 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) (quoting Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petroiam, Ltd., 72 F. Supp. 2d 365, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)).

"The standard for reconsideration is strict and the decision is 'within the sound discretion of the
district court."' Atl. Recording, 2009 WL 2046036, at *1 (quoting Colodney v. Continuum Health
Partners, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 7276 (DLC), 2004 WL 185768, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2004)).

Moreover, importantly, a motion for reconsideration "may not be used to advance new facts,
issues[,] or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for
re-litigating issues already decided by the Court." Am. ORT, Inc. v. ORT Israel, No. 07 Civ. 2332
(RJS), 2009 WL 233950, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2009) (quotation marks omitted); accord Kahala
Corp. v. Holtzman, No. 10 Civ. 4259 (DLC), 2011 WL 1118679, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2011)

(citing Nat 'l Union Fire Ins. Co. ofPittsburgh v. Stroh Cos., Inc., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001)).
Here, the Individual Defendants argue that Plaintiff inadequately pled facts to support the
elements of copyright infringement. But the Individual Defendants point to no authority or data
that the Court overlooked in denying their original motion. Instead, the Individual Defendants
simply restate their conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to meet the pleading standards pursuant to
Iqbal and Twombly while continuing to misstate the elements of direct and secondary copyright

infringement. The Individual Defendants also baldly assert that the Court impermissibly relied on
materials outside the pleadings in reaching its conclusion. Yet the Court's Order cites exclusively
to the First Amended Complaint for its factual representations, and the Individual Defendants
cannot point to anything to suggest to the contrary, other than their own incredulity that the Court
disagreed with them.
Because the Individual Defendants simply rehash the same arguments advanced in their
briefing in support of their motion to dismiss, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Individual
Defendants' motion is DENIED. As stated in the Court's September 22, 2014 Order, the parties

are to submit a joint letter detailing the status of any remaining discovery disputes by October 22,
2014.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 15, 2014
New York, New York