The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.
This matter having come before the Court on the motion of Defendant Curry for reconsideration of this Court's Order of April 25, 2006, granting the Government's in limine motions as to the use of aka's, an anonymous jury and shackling;*fn1 and
it appearing that a Motion for Reconsideration is governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i);*fn2 and
it appearing Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) provides for the reconsideration of an order if the motion for the same is filed within 10 days after entry of the disputed order; and
it appearing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence," Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985); see also, Shoenfeld Asset Mgt. v. Cendent Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001), Yurecko v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson, 2003 WL 22001196, at * 2 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2003); and
it appearing that the Rule requires that the moving party set forth "concisely the matters or controlling decision which counsel believes the [Court] has overlooked," G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990); and
it appearing that "a party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision," G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. at 275; and
it appearing that "a mere 'recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision'" does not warrant reargument, Elizabethtown Water Co. v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 18 F. Supp. 2d 464, 466 (D.N.J. 1998)(quoting Carteret Savings Bank F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F. Supp. 705, 709 (D.N.J. 1989)); and
it appearing that a court may grant a properly filed motion for reconsideration for one of three reasons: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice, Database America v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publ'g., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993)(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991)); and
it appearing that a motion for reconsideration is improper when it is used "to ask the Court to rethink what it had already thought through -- rightly or wrongly," Ciba-Geigy Corporation v. Alza Corporation, 1993 WL 90412, *1 (D.N.J. March 25, 1993); Oritani Sav. & Loan v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 989 F.2d 635 (3d Cir. 1993); and
it appearing that because reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy, motions to reconsider or reargue are granted "very sparingly," Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986); and
it appearing that disagreement with the Court's initial decision as the basis for bringing a motion "should be dealt within the normal appellate process, not on a motion for reargument," Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A.,Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988); and
it appearing that Defendant Curry disagrees with this Court's April 25, 2006 decision and fails to point to a change or error in the law, new evidence or ...