Lloyd Jones v. The City of New York

S.D. New York

Lloyd Jones v. The City of New York

DecidedAugust 13, 2025

Docket1:17-cv-07577

StatusUnknown

This text of Lloyd Jones v. The City of New York (Lloyd Jones v. The City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lloyd Jones v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ──────────────────────────────────── LLOYD JONES, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, 17-cv-7577 (JGK)

- against – ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendant. ────────────────────────────────────

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

On August 1, 2025, the Court received from Daryl Stephen a combined motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 275) of the Court’s July 24, 2025 Order (ECF No. 274) and motion to file under seal a “sealed addendum” and a section of the August 1, 2025 motion for reconsideration. The Court granted Mr. Stephen’s motion to seal (ECF No. 276). On August 11, 2025, Mr. Stephen filed a separate document under seal (ECF No. 277), which the Court has reviewed. Mr. Stephen’s August 1, 2025 motion seeks reconsideration of those portions of the Court’s July 24, 2025 Order (ECF No. 274) that denied Mr. Stephen’s request for an order generally permitting him to bring a mobile phone into the courthouse and for “protective relief.” “The standard for granting” a motion for reconsideration “is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). To merit reconsideration, “[t]he moving party is required to demonstrate that the Court overlooked the controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court in the underlying motion.” Ackerman v. Ackerman, 920 F. Supp. 2d 473, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “This rule is narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court.” Id. Nothing in Mr. Stephen’s submissions, including the sealed separate document, provides any reason to reconsider the Court’s prior Order denying the request for general permission to bring a mobile phone into the courthouse and a protective order. Mr.

Stephen fails to identify any intervening change of controlling law, new evidence, or clear error “that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Accordingly, Mr. Stephen’s August 1, 2025 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 275) is denied. The Clerk is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Stephen at the following address and to note mailing on the docket: Daryl Stephen 1316 Sterling Pl Apt 1R Brooklyn, NY 11213

The Clerk is also requested to e-mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Stephen at DS027C@icloud.com. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York August 13, 2025 ____/s/ John G. Koeltl______ John G. Koeltl United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ──────────────────────────────────── LLOYD JONES, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, 17-cv-7577 (JGK)

- against – ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendant. ────────────────────────────────────

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

On August 1, 2025, the Court received from Daryl Stephen a combined motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 275) of the Court’s July 24, 2025 Order (ECF No. 274) and motion to file under seal a “sealed addendum” and a section of the August 1, 2025 motion for reconsideration. The Court granted Mr. Stephen’s motion to seal (ECF No. 276). On August 11, 2025, Mr. Stephen filed a separate document under seal (ECF No. 277), which the Court has reviewed. Mr. Stephen’s August 1, 2025 motion seeks reconsideration of those portions of the Court’s July 24, 2025 Order (ECF No. 274) that denied Mr. Stephen’s request for an order generally permitting him to bring a mobile phone into the courthouse and for “protective relief.” “The standard for granting” a motion for reconsideration “is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). To merit reconsideration, “[t]he moving party is required to demonstrate that the Court overlooked the controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court in the underlying motion.” Ackerman v. Ackerman, 920 F. Supp. 2d 473, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “This rule is narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court.” Id. Nothing in Mr. Stephen’s submissions, including the sealed separate document, provides any reason to reconsider the Court’s prior Order denying the request for general permission to bring a mobile phone into the courthouse and a protective order. Mr.

Stephen fails to identify any intervening change of controlling law, new evidence, or clear error “that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Accordingly, Mr. Stephen’s August 1, 2025 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 275) is denied. The Clerk is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Stephen at the following address and to note mailing on the docket: Daryl Stephen 1316 Sterling Pl Apt 1R Brooklyn, NY 11213

The Clerk is also requested to e-mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Stephen at DS027C@icloud.com. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York August 13, 2025 ____/s/ John G. Koeltl______ John G. Koeltl United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lloyd Jones v. The City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lloyd-jones-v-the-city-of-new-york-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack