Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc.
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:17-cv-06903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Oakley v. MSG Networks, Judge Sullivan denied Oakley’s reconsideration motion because it repeated arguments already rejected.
Charles Oakley; MSG Networks, Inc.; Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.; and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC.
What happened
In Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc., Charles Oakley asked the court to reconsider an earlier order involving his request for documents from MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC.
The earlier order had denied Oakley’s request to compel production of documents listed on the defendants’ privilege log because the request was untimely. Oakley then asked the court to reconsider that decision.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied the reconsideration motion on February 21, 2025. The court said Oakley had not identified any controlling decision or information that it had overlooked and was instead repeating arguments the court had already rejected.
The detailed version
- Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-06903
- Richard Sullivan
- Feb. 21, 2025
Background
Charles Oakley moved for reconsideration of the court’s February 7, 2025 order. That earlier order denied as untimely Oakley’s motion to compel MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC, to produce various documents identified on their privilege log.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. A party generally must identify a controlling decision or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its conclusion. Alternatively, the party must show that reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice. The court also explained that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or repeat arguments that were already rejected.
Ruling
The court found that Oakley had not identified any controlling decision or information overlooked in the February 7 order. Instead, Oakley had repeated arguments the court had previously considered and rejected. The court therefore denied Oakley’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion listed as Doc. No. 325. Judge Richard J. Sullivan, a circuit judge sitting by designation, entered the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.