Minden Pictures Inc. v. Gizmodo Media Group LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 19, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-02116
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X MINDEN PICTURES, INC., : Plaintiff, : 20 Civ. 2116 (LGS) -against- : GIZMODO MEDIA GROUP LLC, : ORDER Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------------- X LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, on October 5, 2020, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant’s motion to stay pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Defendant’s request that the Court order Plaintiff to post a security bond. Dkt. No. 49. WHEREAS, on October 12, 2020, Defendant filed a request for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to deny a stay of discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 52.

WHEREAS, “[a] motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the [party seeking reconsideration] identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The standard “is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.”

Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration is “not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests within “the sound discretion of the district court.” See Aczel vy. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Strougo v. Barclays PLC, 334 F. Supp. 3d 591, 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). It is hereby

ORDERED that, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendant has not identified “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, 729 F.3d at 104.

Dated: October 19, 2020 Lo Kg La Z “a ( New York, New York LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE