Doe 1 v. MG Freesites LTD

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION

JANE DOE # 1, on behalf of herself and } all others similarly situated, } } Plaintiff, } } v. } Case No.: 7:21-cv-00220-RDP } MG FREESITES LTD, d/b/a } “PORNHUB” et al., } } Defendants. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the Motion and Memorandum to Reconsider or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Intervene Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 filed by Tim Fredrickson. (Doc. # 309). For the reasons explained below, the Motion (Doc. # 309) is due to be denied. The grant or denial of a motion to reconsider is left to the discretion of the district court. See Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir. 2000). Motions for reconsideration are a disfavored, extraordinary remedy that should be employed sparingly. See, e.g., Iberiabank v. Case Constr., LLC, 2015 WL 5457889, at *2 (S.D. Ala. 2015) (“Motions to reconsider are disfavored in federal court and are granted only in narrowly circumscribed circumstances.”). They “cannot be brought solely to relitigate issues already raised.” Harris v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 433 F. App’x 824, 825 (11th Cir. 2011). Instead, as a general rule, “[a] motion to reconsider is only available when a party presents the court with evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc., 2006 WL 8446617, at *1 (N.D. Ala. 2006); see also Harris, 433 F. App’x at 825. Fredrickson has not presented the court with “evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Busby, 2006 WL 8446617 at *1. Nor has he pointed to any other reason this court should reconsider its decision. For the foregoing reasons, Fredrickson’s Motion (Doc. # 309) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this September 16, 2025.

CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE