Tripathy v. Schneider et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
SANJAY TRIPATHY,
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
21-CV-6392FPG
v.
ANDREA N. SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
On November 9, 2023, I issued a decision on several then-pending motions in the
above-captioned matter. (Docket # 133). That same day plaintiff Sanjay Tripathy filed a motion
seeking reconsideration of my decision. (Docket # 135). In support of his motion, Tripathy
asserts factual information relating to his underlying criminal conviction and submits several
exhibits in support of his contention that the conviction has been vacated. (Id.).
“The standard for granting [a motion to reconsider] is strict, and reconsideration
will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that
the court overlooked – matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the
conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)
(citations omitted). “A motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues
or arguments not previously presented to the [c]ourt.” Torres v. Carry, 672 F. Supp. 2d 346, 348
(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quotation omitted). Rather, the primary grounds for reconsideration are “an
intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (quoting Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l
Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)). If the moving party presents no legal
Case 6:21-cv-06392-FPG-CDH Document 140 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 3

2
authority or facts that the court failed to consider, then the motion to reconsider should be
denied. Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d at 257 (“a motion to reconsider should not be
granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided”).
Plaintiff’s motion merely seeks to advance facts and evidence that he could have
but failed to present to the Court in connection with his original motion. While Tripathy is free
to file a new motion in support of his request for a protective order concerning information
relating to his underlying conviction, a motion for reconsideration advancing information not
previously provided to the Court is not the proper procedural vehicle to seek such relief. See
Howard v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2022 WL 2541387, *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) (“a motion
for reconsideration may not be used to introduce facts a movant neglected to allege or proffer
evidence that she failed to establish the first time around”). Accordingly, I decline to reconsider
my earlier decision.
Prior to filing any renewed motion for a protective order, the parties must satisfy
their obligations to meet and confer in good faith. During any such conferral, in light of the
information supplied by Tripathy, defendants must indicate whether they will continue to seek
discovery relating to Tripathy’s conviction and, if so, articulate the relevance or potential
relevance of any such discovery.
In his motion, Tripathy also seeks clarification regarding his communications
with defendants’ counsel. (Docket # 135 at ¶ 2). As I stated in my previous decision, Tripathy
and defendants’ counsel can communicate through written correspondence sent through the mail.
(Docket # 133 at 14). While Tripathy is free to file such communications on the Court’s
electronic docket, he is not required to do so. To the extent he does, in order to ensure that the
Case 6:21-cv-06392-FPG-CDH Document 140 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 3

2
Court does not misinterpret his filing as seeking affirmative relief from the Court, Tripathy
should clearly direct the communication to Ms. Halliyadde, not to the Court.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion to reconsider my November 9,
2023 Decision & Order (Docket # 135) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
November 20, 2023
Case 6:21-cv-06392-FPG-CDH Document 140 Filed 11/20/23 Page 3 of 3