JOSE L. LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Kole Akinola ("Defendant")'s motion for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a rental vehicle on April 27, 2011. For the reasons set forth in this Court's corresponding Opinion,
IT IS on this 23 day of December, 2013,
ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration (CM/ECF Nos. 90, 103, 111) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Kole Akinola ("Defendant")'s motion for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a rental vehicle on April 27, 2011. The Court denied Defendant's motion to suppress on March 15, 2013, following an extensive evidentiary hearing that took place over the course of six days. In addition to considering the evidence presented during the course of the evidentiary hearing, the Court also considered the parties' written submissions and the oral arguments setting forth the legal bases for their respective positions with respect to Defendant's motion to suppress.
Following this Court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, Defendant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration on March 25, 2013. On March 27, 2013 and March 28, 2013, respectively, Messrs. Thomas Ashley, Esq. and David Ruhnke, Esq. filed motions to withdraw as Defendant's counsel. On April 9, 2013, the Court granted counsels' motions to withdraw, and appointed Assistant Federal Public Defender K. Anthony Thomas, Esq. to represent Defendant. Thereafter, on July 22, 2013, Mr. Thomas filed a brief in support of Defendant's motion for reconsideration.
Subsequently, Defendant filed a series of letters with the Court expressing dissatisfaction with the arguments Mr. Thomas raised in support of the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court held a status conference on September 5, 2013 to determine whether Defendant wished to represent himself, or continue being represented by Mr. Thomas. At this conference, Defendant represented to the Court that he wished for Mr. Thomas to continue representing him, but insisted that the Court consider certain arguments that Mr. Thomas failed to raise.
Following the status conference on September 5, 2013, this Court entered an Order allowing Mr. Thomas to amend his brief in support of Defendant's motion for reconsideration to include the arguments Defendant wished for this Court to consider. In accordance with this Court's Order, Mr. Thomas filed a supplemental submission on Defendant's behalf on October 20, 2013. Defendant also filed a pro se supplemental submission on October 23, 2013, in spite of this Court's having instructed him on the record that all his communications with the Court should be through counsel so long as he wished to continue being represented by counsel.
The Court has thoroughly considered all the submissions made in support of and in opposition to Defendant's motion for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy" and should be granted "very sparingly." See Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(i) cmt. 6(d). A motion for reconsideration "may not be used to re-litigate old matters" or argue new matters that could have been raised before the original decision was reached. See, e.g., P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001).
The court will reconsider a prior decision only where a different outcome is justified by: (1) an intervening change in law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or manifest injustice. See N. River ...