The Topps Company, Inc. v. Koko's Confectionery & Novelty, Inc.

Filing 147

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: denying 138 Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for reconsideration, Docket Entry No. 138, is denied. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 9/26/2018) (ama)

UNITED STATES Di&TRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------X
THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiff
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KOKO'S CONFECTIONARY &
NOVELTY, A DIVISION OF A & A
GLOBAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,

16-CV-5954 (GBD)(KNF)

Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------X
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the defendant's motion "for reconsideration of the Court's September
6, 2018 Order" denying the defendant's request for a pre-motion conference and extending the
deadline for all factual depositions to be completed on or before September 30, 2018. The
defendant contends: (1) it "has not waived its objections" to the scope of the plaintiffs proposed
depositions; (2) "while the parties disagree on the scope of discovery, both [the defendant and
the plaintiff] met their obligations to meet and confer"; and (3) "extraordinary circumstances
exist for extending the time for depositions." In support of its motion, the defendant submitted a
declaration by its attorney with exhibits.
The plaintiff opposes the motion contending that: (a) the defendant "ignores the
reconsideration standard"; (b) "the court's orders on July 2 and 10 required the depositions to
proceed regardless of any intended future objections by" the defendant; (c) the plaintiffs
"motion to compel documents does not impact the depositions, and [the defendant] failed to
obtain any protective order"; and (d) "the complained-of extraordinary circumstances appear to
have now been mooted" because the scheduling concerns "have been amicably resolved."

1

In reply, the defendant contends that, although its "motion may be rendered moot by the
passage of time, that does not mean" that the defendant waived "its longstanding and proper
objections to the scope of discovery in this action." The defendant requests the Court to "allow
additional leeway to schedule mutually convenient deposition dates."
LEGAL STANDARD
Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court provides that a party may make a motion for
reconsideration of a court order determining a motion by "setting forth concisely the matters or
controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has overlooked." "The standard for
granting such a motion is strict, and 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." Shrader
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). "[A] motion to reconsider should not be
granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Id.
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARD
The defendant failed to comply with: (i) Local Civil Rule 7. l(a)(l) of this court requiring
that a notice of motion "specify the applicable rules or statutes pursuant to which the motion is
brought"; and (ii) Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court providing that, on a motion for
reconsideration, "[n]o affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the Court."
Notwithstanding these procedural deficiencies, the Court will consider the motion.
The defendant does not set forth the factual matters or controlling decisions which it
believes the Court has overlooked, as required by Local civil Rule 6.3 of this court. The
defendant's disagreement with the Court's September 6, 2018 order is not a ground for a motion

2

for reconsideration contemplated by Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court. Accordingly, the
defendant's motion for reconsideration, Docket Entry No. 138, is denied.
Dated: New York, New York
September 26, 2018

SO ORDERED:

KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3