Shim-Larkin v. City of New York

Filing 458

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, re: 386 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 385 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on 283 Objection re: 267 Memo Endorsement. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 259 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions re: 251 FIRST LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox from Dominique F. Saint-Fort dated April 17, 2018. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 355 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions re: 350 Objection re: 334 Order on Motion for Protect ive Order. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 402 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated October 22, 2018. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 271 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION for Sanctions re: 259 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 394 SECOND MOTION for Reconsideration re; 385 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on 283 Objection re: 267 Memo Endorsement. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 278 MOTION for Sanctions . filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. Having reviewed Plaintiff's two motions for reconsideration and the parties' briefing, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary to the resolution of these motio ns. The Court further concludes that Plaintiff has failed to meet the "strict" standard of a motion for reconsideration. Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (July 13, 2012). This reso lves docket items numbers 386, 394, and 402. Furthermore, given the relevance of the Court's September 27, 2018, order to several of Plaintiff's previous motions for sanctions, Dkt. Nos. 259,271, and 278, the Court hereby administratively d enies these motions without prejudice. An administrative denial does not pass any judgment on the merits of a motion. Instead it serves, as here, to ensure that issues before the Court are cleanly presented, avoiding duplication and confusion. Plain tiff will have leave to refile as described in further detail below. This resolves docket items numbers 259,271, and 278, as further set forth in this Order. Within three weeks of the date of this order, Plaintiff may file a single motion addressing any issues from docket items 259,271,278, and 355 that remain in light of the Court's September 27, 2018, order and the instant order. This motion shall be no more than fifteen pages in length and shall fully comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7.1. Failure to comply with these rules or the filing of duplicative motions may result in the dismissal of those motions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/13/2019) (kv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

. -FEB

Heena Shim-Larkin,
Plaintiff,

-v-

16-cv-6099 (AJN)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER

City of New York,
Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
In its September 27, 2018, order, the Court, inter alia, granted Defendant's objection to
Magistrate Judge Fox's April 30, 2018, order regarding Plaintiffs twelfth, thirteenth, and
fourteenth discovery requests, Dkt. No. 385. On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff moved for
reconsideration of the Court's order. Dkt. No. 386. On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second
motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 394.
"A motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the [moving party] identifies
an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct
a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Kole! Beth Yechiel Mechil ofTartikov, Inc. v. YLL
Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). This
standard is stringent since "reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources,"
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. P3 Int'l Corp., 16-CV-6276 (A.TN), 2018 WL 401511, at *2 (S,D.N.Y.
Jan. 12, 2018) (quoting In re Health lvlgmt. Sys., Inc. Secs. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613,614
(S.D.N.Y. 2000)).

Having reviewed Plaintiff's two motions for reconsideration and the parties' briefing, the
Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary to the resolution of these motions. The Court
fmiher concludes that Plaintiff has failed to meet the "strict" standard of a motion for
reconsideration. Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir.
2012), as amended (July 13, 2012). This resolves docket items numbers 386, 394, and 402.
Furthermore, given the relevance of the Court's September 27, 2018, order to several of
Plaintiff's previous motions for sanctions, Dkt. Nos. 259,271, and 278, the Court hereby
administratively denies these motions without prejudice. An administrative denial does not pass
any judgment on the merits of a motion. Instead it serves, as here, to ensure that issues before
the Court are cleanly presented, avoiding duplication and confusion. Plaintiff will have leave to
refile as described in further detail below. This resolves docket items numbers 259,271, and
278.
Defendant previously requested a stay of docket items 259, 271, and 278, which Judge
Fox denied in his July 16, 2018, order, Dkt. No. 334. Defendants objected to Judge Fox's July 16
order. Dkt. Nos. 349, 350. In light of the above, that objection is denied as moot. Plaintiff
opposed Defendant's objection, in a motion styled a "cross-motion for sanctions." Dkt. No. 355.
Plaintiff's motion is also administratively denied without prejudice to refile as further described
below. This resolves docket items 349, 350, and 355.
Within three weeks of the date of this order, Plaintiff may file a single motion addressing
any issues from docket items 259,271,278, and 355 that remain in light of the Court's
September 27, 2018, order and the instant order. This motion shall be no more than fifteen pages
in length and shall fully comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7 .1. Failure to comply with
these rules or the filing of duplicative motions may result in the dismissal of those motions.

2

SO ORDERED
Dated: February
2019
New York, New York

~,

3

ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge