Opinion

McPherson v. Google Inc.

Court
District Court, E.D. New York
Filed
Aug 21, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only

RACQUEL K MCPHERSON,

Plaintiff, ORDER

17-cv-03418 (JMA)

-against-

GOOGLE INC.,

Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------X

AZRACK, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 20), of the Court’s February 1, 2018 Order

dismissing the Complaint, (ECF No. 16), as well as the Court’s February 28, 2023 Order denying

Plaintiff’s motion to seal this case, (ECF No. 19), are denied.

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. In re

Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “Motions for

reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3,

which are meant to ensure the finality of decisions . . . .” Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen

E. Corp, 965 F. Supp. 2d 402, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted), aff’d, 577 F. App’x 11 (2d

Cir. 2014). A motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “must be filed no later

than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Cohen v. Jamison, No. 23-CV-1304 (LTS), 2023

WL 3412762, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2023). Further, “[a] motion brought under Local Civil

Rule 6.3 must be filed within 14 days ‘after the entry of the Court's determination of the original

motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment, within . . . (14) days after the entry

of the judgment.’” Id. at *2. “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 over looked 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) (citations

omitted). A motion to alter a judgment under Rule 59(e) “may be granted ‘only if the movant

satisfies the heavy burden of demonstrating an intervening change of controlling law, the

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’”

Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 10 F. Supp. 3d 460, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting

Hollander v. Members of the Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of the State of N.Y., 524 F. App'x 727,

729 (2d Cir. 2013)). Indeed, 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 Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir.

2012) (citation omitted). Further, it is within the sound discretion of the district court whether or

not to grant a motion for reconsideration. See Gupta v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 52 F. Supp.

3d 677, 679-80 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

Here, as a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s motion is brought well beyond the respective 28-

day or 14-day time periods given that judgment was entered on February 6, 2018, (ECF No. 17),

and the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to seal on February 23, 2023. Even if timely filed, having

examined the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has not met this exacting standard. Rather,

Plaintiff complains that the public information about this case “is having a negative effect on my

search for a weekly paying job.” (ECF No. 20.) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal

from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied

for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The

Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order to the Plaintiff at her address

of record.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2023

Central Islip, New York

/s/ (JMA)

JOAN M. AZRACK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.