Diaz v. Wall et al

Filing 125

MEMORANDUME AND ORDER denying 117 Motion for Reconsideration re 117 MOTION for Reconsideration re 111 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,, Order on Ex Parte Motion,, regarding access to "OC Policy" filed by Samuel J. Diaz. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan on 9/23/2021. (Saucier, Martha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
SAMUEL DIAZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA A. COYNE-FAGUE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

C.A. No. 21-CV-241-JJM-PAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 117) of the Court’s order (ECF No. 111)
permitting redaction of irrelevant material from “OC policy” document and restricting access is
denied. “The granting of a motion for reconsideration is ‘an extraordinary remedy which should
be used sparingly.’” Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc., C.A. No. 05-229S, 2008 WL 169693, at *1 (D.R.I.
Jan. 16, 2008) (quoting Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006)). “Unless
the court has misapprehended some material fact or point of law, such a motion is normally not a
promising vehicle for revisiting a party’s case and rearguing theories previously advanced and
rejected.” Palmer, 465 F.3d at 30. To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a movant “must
demonstrate either that newly discovered evidence (not previously available) has come to light or
that the rendering court committed a manifest error of law.” Id.; see Silva v. Farrell, C.A. No.
18-650JJM, 2019 WL 2501887, at *1 (D.R.I. Jan. 15, 2019), adopted, C.A. No. 18-650-JJMPAS, 2019 WL 2500668 (D.R.I. Jan. 30, 2019).
The Court’s in camera review confirmed that the redacted portions of the document are
not relevant to this case. The Court’s order further allows Plaintiff access to the document on
request, as staffing and time permit. Further, the Court hereby clarifies that Defendant shall

retain the document for summary judgment or trial and must comply with Plaintiff’s request for
it to be filed under seal to be made part of the Court’s record in Plaintiff’s sole option. Based on
the absence of any need to reconsider the prior determination and in reliance on Defendant’s
representation that it has complied with the Court’s order, the motion (ECF No. 117) is denied.

/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
September 23, 2021

2