United States District Court, D. New Jersey
BONGIOVANNI, Magistrate Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff Atiya Wahab's
(“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration of the
Court's October 30, 2017 Order denying Plaintiff's
request for discovery and ordering disclosure. (Docket Entry
No. 129). Defendants the State of New Jersey, the Department
of Environmental Protection, Steven Maybury, Gwen Zervas and
Pam Lyons (“State Defendants”) oppose
Plaintiff's motion. (Docket Entry No. 132). The Court has
reviewed all arguments raised in support of and in opposition
to Plaintiff's motion. The Court considers
Plaintiff's motion without oral argument pursuant to
L.Civ.R. 78.1(b). For the reasons stated more fully below,
Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Court and the parties are very familiar with the facts
underlying this matter. As such, the Court shall neither
restate the facts of this case nor repeat the arguments made
in support of and in opposition to Plaintiff's motion at
is asking the Court to reconsider Its October 30, 2017 Ruling
in which it denied Plaintiff's request for discovery
regarding other complaints of discrimination and denied
Plaintiff's request that Defendant Gwen Zervas be
compelled to answer the questions that she was directed not
to answer at her deposition. (Docket Entry No. 127).
argues that reconsideration is appropriate because the
October 30, 2017 Order contained errors of fact and law that
must be addressed. Pl.'s Br. in Supp. of Mot. at
1. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Court was
incorrect in its statement that Plaintiff was dilatory in
asking for discovery regarding other complaints of
discrimination. Id. at 2. Plaintiff notes that the
issues raised in its motion to compel were raised as a result
of the direction by counsel for Gwen Zervas not to answer
questions about other claims of discrimination at her
deposition on May 15, 2017. Id. Additionally,
Plaintiff argues that this Court disregarded law that
“firmly establishes that discovery of acts of
discrimination against others is not only discoverable, it is
often admissible, and may be highly probative.”
Id. at 10 citing Shattuck v. Kinetic Concepts,
Inc., 49 F.3d 1106, 1109-1110 (5th Cir.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's assertion that she was
not dilatory in asking for the requested discovery is
incorrect. State Defendants contend that it was not a delay
of only a few days between when Plaintiff demanded EEO files
during the deposition of Defendant Gwen Zervas and Plaintiff
filed a letter requesting permission to file a motion to
compel. Defs.' Br. in Opp'n at 2. As the
Court noted in Its October 30, 2017 Opinion, Plaintiff
originally requested the EEO files in 2015 and never sought
to compel these files until after Defendant Zervas'
depositon in 2017. (Docket Entry No. 127).
Defendants further argue that instead of demonstrating that
there was a clear error of fact or law, Plaintiff reasserts
her original argument, that EEO files are always relevant in
discrimination cases. Defs.' Br. in Opp'n at
district, motions for reconsideration are governed by
L.Civ.R. 7.1(i) and are considered “extremely limited
procedural vehicle(s).” Resorts Int'l v. Greate
Bay Hotel & Casino, 830 F.Supp. 826, 831 (D.N.J.
1992). As a result, “reconsideration is an
extraordinary remedy, that is granted ‘very
sparingly[.]'” Brackett v. Ashcroft, No.
Civ. 03-3988 (WJM), 2003 WL 22303078, *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7,
2003) (quoting Interfaith Community Org. v. Honeywell
Int'l, Inc., 215 F.Supp.2d 482, 507 (D.N.J. 2002).
As such, a party seeking reconsideration bears a high burden
and must demonstrate one of the following three grounds to
establish that reconsideration is appropriate: “(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.”
Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
7.1(i) provides that:
Unless otherwise provided by statute or rule . . ., a motion
for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 days
after the entry of the order or judgment on the original
motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting
forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the
party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked
shall be filed with the Notice of Motion.
clear from the text of the Rule, the term
“overlook” is the dominant term in L.Civ.R.
7.1(i). Indeed, generally, the Rule “does not
contemplate a Court looking to matters which were not
originally presented.” Florham Park Chevron, Inc.
v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J.
1988). Consequently, “except in cases where there is a
need to correct a clear error or manifest injustice,
‘[o]nly dispositive factual matters and controlling
decisions of law which were presented to the court but not
considered on the original motion may be the subject of a
motion for reconsideration.'” Guinta v.
Accenture, LLP, Civ. No. 08-3776 (DRD), 2009 WL 301920,
*5 (D.N.J. Jan. 23, 2009) (quoting Resorts
Int'l, 830 F.Supp. at 831).
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth an
appropriate ground warranting reconsideration. At best, it
appears that Plaintiff simply disagrees with the Court's
reasoning and decision. The Court, however, is not obligated
to, nor is it proper for Plaintiff to request that the Court
“rethink what it had already thought through - -
rightly or wrongly.” Oritani S & L v. Fidelity
& Deposit, 744 F.Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990).
Plaintiff has not established the existence of evidence that
was previously unavailable or a change in the applicable law
to warrant a motion for reconsideration. Furthermore,
Plaintiff has similarly failed to establish a manifest error
of fact or law by the Court. The Court maintains Its position
that Plaintiff's request is untimely and burdensome.
Although the Court agrees with Plaintiff's assertion that