Baez Romero v. DHL Express Inc et al

Filing 131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 124 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 122 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Mauricio Baez Romero. Pro se Plaintiff Mauricio Baez Romero ("Baez Romero") brings this action for employment discrimination and breach of the duty of fair representation against Defendants DHL Express, Inc. ("DHL") and Local 295, I.B.T. ("Local 295"). For the foregoing reasons herein, Baez Romero's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 8/7/2014) (kgo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
§QUTH_ERN DIST~IGI__OF NEW YORJf________

~I

MAURICIO BAEZ ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
- against 12cvl 942 (VEC) (RLE)
OHL EXPRESS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

.

------------------ ------------------~-----~-------~!
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:

Prose Plaintiff Mauricio Baez Romero ("Baez Romero") brings this action for

employment discrimination and breach of the duty of fair representation against Defendants
DHL Express, Inc. ("DHL") and Local 295, I.B.T. (''Local 295"). The action was referred to the
undersigned for general pretrial matters on April 2, 2013. (Docket No. 74.) Before the Court is
Baez Romero's motion for reconsideration of the Court's June 2 Memorandum Opinion And
Order denying Baez Romero's request for a conference and sanctions against DHL, ordering
discovery completed, and ordering the Parties to file a pretrial order in accordance with Judge
Caproni's Individual Rules. For the reasons that follow, Baez Romero's motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
I. DISCUSSION

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a movant must show that the court
overlooked factual matters or controlling precedent "that might have materially influenced its
earlier decision.'· Robins v. Max Mara, U.S.A .. Inc., 923 F. Supp. 460, 473 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
(citing Morser v. AT&T Info. Sys., 715 F. Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). This criteria is
strictly construed against the moving party. See Monaghan v. SZS 33 Assoc .. L. P., 153 F.R.D.

60, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); New York News Inc. v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New
York, 139 F.R.D. 294, 294-95 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), qff"d, 972 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1992). A motion for

reconsideration is not a "forum for new theories or for 'plugging the gaps of a lost motion with
additional matters."' CMNYCapital. L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 821 F. Supp. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y.
1993) (citing Mc Mahan & Co. v. Donaldson. Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 727 F. Supp. 833,
833 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). Further, reconsideration is not a vehicle for the losing party to argue that
'"the Court improperly weighed and construed the facts." See Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d
458, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Motions for reconsideration lie within the sound discretion of the
district court. McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 1983); see also FED. R. Civ. P.
72(a); LOCAL Civ. R. 6.3 (providing instruction on content and service of motions for
reconsideration).
Baez Romero's request for reconsideration does not demonstrate that the Court has
overlooked any factual matters or controlling precedent that might have materially influenced its
earlier decision. He argues that he wrote to the Court several times regarding Defendants'
failure to produce discovery, including on January 15, 2014, and that the Court did not address
the issues raised in his January 15 letter. (Docket No. 124, at 2.) This argument is without
merit. The Court addressed the issues raised in the January 15, 2014 letter in its March 12, 2014
Telephone Conference with the Parties. Furthermore, Baez Romero does not demonstrate that
the Court overlooked any factual matters in the letter that might have materially influenced its
decision.
Baez Romero further argues that Defendants delayed in providing him with document
discovery until depositions had passed, (id. at Ex. DCl, DC2). and that he provided exhibits in
his January 15 letter that "illustratled] the manipulation of evidence from defendants.'' (Id.)
2

This argument also does not demonstrate that the Court overlooked any factual matters that
might have materially influenced its decision. Indeed, Baez Romero has repeatedly requested
the Court to compel Defendants to produce discovery, and the Court responded to Baez
Romero's requests as it received them. Baez Romero may not use the vehicle of a motion for
reconsideration for re-arguing issues already decided. See Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d
458, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Because he has not demonstrated that the Court overlooked any
specific facts or controlling precedent, his argument is without merit.
Baez Romero also claims that Defendants have misinformed the Court. (Docket No. 124,
at 3.) In his reply, he asserts that Defendants' counsel lied to the Court about the timing of when
Baez Romero requested document discovery from him, and the reason for the rescheduling of
the Dawodu deposition. (Docket No. 126, at 2, 4.) However, these assertions, even if assumed
to be true, are not facts that would have materially influenced the Court's decision. Therefore,
this argument is without merit.
Baez Romero asserts that he "should not have been pressured to conduct depositions
under the circumstances." (Id. at 3.) However, as previously discussed, Baez Romero may not
prevail on a motion for reconsideration by re-arguing issues already decided. The Court ordered
depositions to proceed at the March 12, 2014 Telephone Conference; therefore, this issue has
already been decided.
He claims that the Court failed to address material issues he raised in his April 17, 2014
letter, such as counsel for DHL's alleged lying to the Court. (Id. at 3.) However, this is the very
issue the Court decided in the opinion for which Baez Romero seeks reconsideration. The Court
declined to address the issues raised in the April 17, 2014 letter because it found that Baez
Romero had not shown just cause for his failure to bring the issues to the Court's attention prior
3

to April 17, 2014. Baez Romero may not prevail on his motion for reconsideration by
relitigating this issue.
In his reply, Baez Romero argues that just cause exists for his failure to provide courtordered documentation regarding alleged witness intimidation, because the witnesses in question
were too afraid to document the intimidation. (Id. at 5.) However, if this were the case, Baez
Romero should have raised this issue to the Court earlier. He has not demonstrated just cause
for his failure to do so.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Baez Romero's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of August 2014
New York, New York

The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge

4