Filali v. Harrisburg AL Operations LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMI EL FILALI,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARRISBURG AL OPERATIONS
LLC,
Defendant.
CIVIL NO. 1:23-cv-00133
(KANE, J.)
(LATELLA, M.J.)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Sami El Filali filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
our Order denying his Motion to Compel the Defendant to Release
Video Footage. As set forth herein, because Plaintiff has not satisfied
the “stringent” standard for reconsideration, his motion will be denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint on January 24,
2023. (Doc. 1). At the time the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was
represented by counsel. (Id.). Defendant answered the Complaint on
April 17, 2023. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel on October 11, 2023, indicating that Plaintiff had terminated
him. (Doc. 18). The court granted that motion on October 17, 2023 and
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 10

2
provided Plaintiff with thirty (30) days to find new counsel or advise the
Court of his intention to proceed pro se. (Doc. 21). On November 21,
2023, the Court issued another Order indicating that Plaintiff failed to
comply with its October 17, 2023 Order and directing Plaintiff to notify
the Court by December 1, 2023 as to whether he retained new counsel
or intended to proceed pro se. (Doc. 23). On November 30, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a letter to the docket stating that “[T]he Counsel [sic] of
American Islamic Relation is my new counsel in this case.” (Doc. 24).
However, the following day, December 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed another
letter to the docket indicating that he would be proceeding pro se. (Doc.
25).
The matter was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom for
pretrial management on December 20, 2023. Defendant filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment and supporting brief on May 14, 2025. (Doc.
66). On June 10, 2025, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned
magistrate judge for pretrial management. Plaintiff filed a brief in
opposition to summary judgment on August 19, 2025 and then filed a
request for a copy of a deposition on August 21, 2025. (Docs. 70, 71).
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 10

3
Defendant filed a reply brief in further support of summary judgment
on September 2, 2025. (Doc. 72).
Plaintiff then filed a “Request to appoint a representative” on
September 8, 2025. (Doc. 74). On that same date, he filed a “Motion to
compel the defendant to release the security camera recording tapes”
(hereinafter “Motion to Compel”). (Doc. 75). On September 16, 2025, he
filed a “Memorandum and Brief Summary Defendant’s False
Allegatio[n]s and Misleading Facts.” (Doc. 76).
We issued a Memorandum (Doc. 78) and Order (Doc. 79) on
October 30, 2025, directing Plaintiff to provide to the Court for in
camera review any (1) documentation from a public agency or court of
record that he has been adjudicated incompetent, or (2) documentation
from a medical provider that the type of mental illness he is being
treated for renders him legally incompetent, to the extent such
documentation exists. On November 20, 2025, having received no
response from Plaintiff, we filed an additional Order again directing
Plaintiff to provide the specified documentation on or before December
4, 2025. (Doc. 80).
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 10

4
On December 1, 2025, the Court received documents from Plaintiff
for in camera review. After reviewing those submissions, we issued a
Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 82) and Order (Doc. 83) denying Plaintiff’s
Request to Appoint a Representative (74). On December 22, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order (Doc. 89),
which we denied. (Doc. 91).
With respect to his Motion to Compel, we issued an Order and
Memorandum on December 9, 2025 denying the motion. (Doc. Nos. 84,
85). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 29, 2025.
(Doc. 92). In order to fully address Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, we issued an Order on December 30, 2025 directing
Defendant to submit a “verified response indicating (1) the efforts it
took to identify the requested video footage; and (2) the results of those
efforts.” (Doc. 93). In compliance with that Order, Defendant filed
submitted an affidavit on January 7, 2026. (Doc. 94). We now consider
Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 92).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The Third Circuit has instructed that the purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to “correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 10

5
newly discovered evidence.” 	Harsco v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d
Cir. 1985). Thus, reconsideration is only properly granted where the
party moving for reconsideration shows “(1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or
(3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” 	Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
Importantly, “[a] motion for reconsideration is not properly
grounded on a request that the Court simply rethink a decision it has
already made.” 	Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Scout Petroleum,
LLC, 73 F. Supp. 3d 488, 491 (M.D. Pa. 2014), aff'd sub nom.
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, 809 F.3d 746 (3d
Cir. 2016) (quoting Douris v. Schweiker, 229 F.Supp.2d 391, 408 (E.D.
Pa. 2002)). “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is a
stringent one.... [A] mere disagreement with the court does not
translate into a clear error of law.” 	Mpala v. Smith, CIV. 3:CV–06–841,
2007 WL 136750, *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2007) (Kosik, J.) aff'd, 241 F.
App’x. 3 (3d Cir. 2007). “Because federal courts have a strong interest
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 10

6
in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be
granted sparingly.” 	Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F.
Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
III. 	DISCUSSION
In our Memorandum Opinion dated December 9, 2025, we
explained that Plaintiff’s motion to compel was untimely, as it was filed
after the deadlines for both discovery and dispositive motions. (Doc. 84
at 6); see also Finzie v. Shineski, 351 F. App’x 668, 672, n. 7 (3d Cir.
2009); Frazier v. SCI Medical Dispensary Doctor + 2 Staff Members, No.
1:07-0194, 2009 WL 136724, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (“A motion
to compel after the close of discovery is not timely and will be denied
absent special circumstances.”).
Additionally, we noted that the Defendant had represented that it
repeatedly informed Plaintiff that the requested video footage did not
exist. (Doc. 84 at 7). Accordingly, we stated that “we cannot compel the
production of evidence by parties who assert that they do not possess
the materials sought by an adversary in litigation.” (Id.) (citing
AFSCME District Council 47 Health and Welfare Fund v. Ortho-
McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 08-5904, 2010 WL 5186088,
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 6 of 10

7
*4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2010) (court denied motion to compel where
plaintiffs represented that they did not possess the documents sought
by defendant); Knauss v. Shannon, No. 08-1698, 2009 WL 975251, *3
(M.D. Pa. April 9, 2009) (motion to compel denied where defendant
asserted that video footage sought by plaintiff did not exist); Lawson v.
Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1266, 2019 WL
5622453, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2019) (“[i]t is clear . . . that the court
cannot compel the production of things that do not exist.”).
Following Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, we issued an
Order directing Defendant to submit a “verified response indicating (1)
the efforts it took to identify the requested video footage; and (2) the
results of those efforts.” (Doc. 93). Defendant complied and filed two
affidavits on January 7, 2026. (Doc. 94). First, Defendant filed the
Affidavit of Jeffrey M. Daitz. (Doc. 94 at 1-5). Mr. Daitz stated that he
is the primary attorney representing Defendant in this matter. (Id. at
¶1). He indicated that during the discovery period, the only request
that Defendant received for video footage was in “unsigned and
incomplete” subpoena dated December 23, 2024. (Id. at ¶8). The
subpoena requested “surveillance videos, security camera records, etc.,”
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 7 of 10

8
without specifying the dates of the requested footage or the area in
which the footage was maintained. (Id.). Defendant reviewed its
records for any relevant footage in its possession, but was unable to
locate any surveillance footage. (Id.).
Defendant also submitted an Affidavit of Antonia Bultron. Ms.
Bultron stated that she is the Vice President of Human Resources for
Defendant. (Doc. 94-1 at ¶1). Ms. Bultron indicated that the facility at
issue was previously owned by a different entity. (Id. at ¶4). The
facility was purchased in February 2022. (Id.). Ms. Bultron indicated
that the building has surveillance footage, but video footage is “not
preserved indefinitely and is overwritten in the normal course absent a
specific preservation request.” (Id. at 4). Further, she stated that the
new ownership installed a new surveillance system in January 2023.
(Id. at 5). Footage from the prior security system was not saved. (Id.).
Accordingly, she stated that Defendant is not in possession of any video
footage predating January 2023. (Id.). Ms. Bulton confirmed that she
undertook a “through and good-faith search for any video footage that
might depict Mr. El Filali by reviewing the facility’s camera inventory”
and that she verified that “no archived, backup, or off-system recordings
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 8 of 10

9
exist for the time period of Plaintiff’s employment” with Defendant. (Id.
at ¶7).
In support of his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff does not
argue that there has been an intervening change in controlling law nor
does he argue that there is new evidence that is available that was not
available when we entered our prior order. Finally, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that reconsideration is necessary here to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Rather, it remains beyond dispute that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel is untimely. Further, Defendant has now verified under
penalty of perjury that the video footage requested by Plaintiff does not
exist. (See Doc. Nos. 94, 94-1). We cannot compel Defendant to produce
something that does not exist. See, e.g., Knauss v. Shannon, 2009 WL
975251, *3. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc., 176 F.3d at 677.
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 9 of 10

10
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 92) will be denied. An order follows.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	s/ Leo A. Latella
LEO A. LATELLA
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 102 Filed 02/02/26 Page 10 of 10