Shim-Larkin v. City of New York
Filing
782
ORDER denying 768 Motion for Reconsideration re 768 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 764 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is den ied. This resolves docket number 768. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). All outstanding discovery dispu tes and pending motions are now resolved. The parties are ordered to file a joint letter by May 6, 2022, proposing a schedule for briefing any anticipated summary judgment motions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation Alison J. Nathan on 4/27/2022) (vfr)
Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-JW Document 782 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
4/27/22
Shim-Larkin,
Plaintiff,
16-cv-6099 (AJN)
–v–
ORDER
City of New York,
Defendants.
ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:
On October 18, 2021, the Court issued an opinion denying Plaintiff’s objection to a
decision by Magistrate Judge Fox regarding discovery. Dkt. No. 764. Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Reconsideration on November 15, 2021. Dkt. No. 768. As of January 24, 2022, the motion
has been fully briefed. Dkt. Nos. 771, 776. For the reasons explained below, that motion is
DENIED.
I.
Discussion
A motion for reconsideration should be granted only if the movant identifies “an
intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL
Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted). It is not a
“vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing
on the merits, or otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple.’” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga
Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136,
144 (2d Cir. 1998)).
1
Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-JW Document 782 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 3
Moreover, “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound
discretion of the district court.” Corines v. Am. Physicians Ins. Tr., 769 F. Supp. 2d 584, 594
(S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Reconsideration of a previous order by the court is an ‘extraordinary remedy
to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources.’” RST (2005) Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 597 F. Supp. 2d 362, 365 (S.D.N.Y.
2009) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y.
2000)).
In her briefs, Plaintiff repeats her initial claims, argues that the Court overlooked her
arguments and sources she cited in support, and alleges that the Court mischaracterized Judge
Fox’s November 24, 2020 order. A motion for reconsideration is not a means for “relitigating
old issues” that the Court has already considered, Analytical Surveys, Inc., 684 F.3d at 52, and
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s analysis of her arguments is not a basis for
reconsideration. The Court acknowledges that Defendant’s initial response to Plaintiff’s
disclosure on August 10, 2020, did not include a timeliness objection, but that fact is not of
consequence because it does not alter the conclusion reached by the Court. See Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Ultimately, regardless of whether Defendant
waived challenging the timeliness of the disclosure, the deadline was clearly set by Judge Fox for
January 23, 2018. Dkt. No. 714-1 at 6. Thus, the timing of Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s
disclosure does not warrant reconsideration. And above all else, the Court concluded that
Plaintiff could not establish excusable neglect for making the disclosure more than two years
after the close of discovery, and Plaintiff has failed to provide new facts or law that would alter
that conclusion.
2
Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-JW Document 782 Filed 04/27/22 Page 3 of 3
II.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. This
resolves docket number 768. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
445 (1962).
All outstanding discovery disputes and pending motions are now resolved. The parties
are ordered to file a joint letter by May 6, 2022, proposing a schedule for briefing any anticipated
summary judgment motions.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2022
New York, New York
____________________________________
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States Circuit Judge
Sitting by Designation
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?