Oakley v. Dolan et al
Filing
279
ORDER denying 269 Motion for Reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Oakley's motion for clarification, or alternatively reconsideration, is DENIED. Oakley may question Benedetto about what, if anything, he com municated to others regarding Oakley's removal, and what others communicated to him concerning that same topic. To the extent that factual statements regarding Oakleys removal were made by or to Benedetto at the time of his termination, Oakley m ay inquire as to those statements. However, Oakley may not otherwise question Benedetto regarding his termination. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Doc. No. 269. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan, Sitting by Designation on 1/27/2025) (rro) (Main Document 279 replaced on 1/28/2025) (rro).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHARLES OAKLEY,
Plaintiff,
No. 17-cv-6903 (RJS)
ORDER
-vMSG NETWORKS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge:
Before the Court is a motion by plaintiff Charles Oakley seeking clarification, or alternatively
reconsideration, of the Court’s January 15, 2025 order (the “January 15 Order”). (See Doc. Nos. 269,
270.) In that order, the Court granted Oakley’s motion to depose non-party Frank Benedetto and
granted Benedetto’s motion for a protective order limiting the scope of his deposition. (See Doc. No.
264.) Oakley now seeks clarification or reconsideration as to whether he is permitted to ask Benedetto
(1) “what he communicated to others, if anything, about Oakley’s ejection,” and (2) “whether, and to
what extent, Oakley’s ejection from the Garden contributed to [Benedetto’s] termination from
[Madison Square Garden (‘MSG’)].” (Doc. No. 270 at 1.) For the reasons set forth below, Oakley’s
motion is DENIED.
I.
Legal Standard
With respect to Oakley’s motion for clarification, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a)
“enables a court to clarify or explain an order to correct a failure to memorialize part of its decision,
to reflect the necessary implications of the original order, to ensure that the [C]ourt’s purpose is fully
implemented, or to permit enforcement.” Commerzbank AG v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 15-cv-10029
(GBD) (BCM), 2024 WL 1309239, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
To the extent that Oakley’s motion is one for reconsideration, “[t]he standard . . . 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).
Alternatively, the movant must demonstrate “the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The Second Circuit has long recognized that a motion for
reconsideration “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 Survs.,
Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Associated Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 395 F. Supp. 2d 17, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“[A] motion for
reconsideration is neither an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an
opportunity for making new arguments that could have been previously advanced.”).
II.
Discussion
In the January 15 Order, the Court explained that Benedetto had relevant testimony because
he “may have communicated with other participants and MSG executives about Oakley’s removal
before, during, and/or after the incident.” (Doc. No. 264 at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted).)
Accordingly, the Court clearly contemplated that Benedetto’s statements to others – and others’
statements to him – about Oakley’s ejection were fair game. For that reason, Oakley’s motion for
clarification is DENIED. Nevertheless, to avoid any doubt and “to ensure that the [C]ourt’s purpose
is fully implemented,” Commerzbank AG, 2024 WL 1309239, at *2 (internal quotation marks
2
omitted), the Court reiterates that Oakley is permitted to ask Benedetto what, if anything, he
communicated to others – and what others communicated to him – regarding Oakley’s ejection.
With respect to Benedetto’s termination, the Court explained that the two remaining issues in
this case are “(1) the amount of force used to remove Oakley from [MSG] and (2) whether that force
was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” (Doc. No. 264 at 4 (internal quotation marks
omitted).) The Court also noted that if any MSG executives made statements to Benedetto at the time
of his termination regarding what occurred on the evening of February 8, 2017, those statements are
of course relevant and are proper deposition topics. (See id. at 4–5.) Such statements might, for
example, shed light on Oakley’s behavior prior to his removal as well as the nature and degree of
force, if any, used to remove him. However, the fact that Benedetto was fired from MSG or that
Oakley’s removal may have been the reason for Benedetto’s termination is not relevant to the
remaining issues here. (See id.) Accordingly, Oakley has not demonstrated any “need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice,” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255 (internal
quotation marks omitted), and his motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Oakley’s motion for
clarification, or alternatively reconsideration, is DENIED. Oakley may question Benedetto about
what, if anything, he communicated to others regarding Oakley’s removal, and what others
communicated to him concerning that same topic. To the extent that factual statements regarding
Oakley’s removal were made by or to Benedetto at the time of his termination, Oakley may inquire
as to those statements. However, Oakley may not otherwise question Benedetto regarding his
3
termination. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Doc. No.
269.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 27, 2025
New York, New York
______
__________________
_______
________________________
_
____________________________________
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
Sitting by Designation
4
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?