Lloyd Jones v. The City of New York
- John Koeltl
- 1:17-cv-07577
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lloyd Jones v. City of New York, Judge Koeltl denied Daryl Stephen’s motion to reconsider courthouse phone access and protective relief.
Daryl Stephen, whose motion to reconsider the denial of general courthouse mobile-phone permission and protective relief was denied.
What happened
Lloyd Jones v. City of New York concerns Daryl Stephen’s request to revisit part of an earlier order. That earlier order denied his request for general permission to bring a mobile phone into the courthouse and for protective relief.
Stephen submitted a motion for reconsideration and a sealed document. The court said reconsideration is available only when the court overlooked controlling law or important facts, or when there is an intervening legal change, new evidence, or clear error.
Judge Koeltl found that Stephen’s submissions did not meet that standard and denied the motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to mail and email the order to Stephen.
The detailed version
- Lloyd Jones v. The City of New York · No. 1:17-cv-07577
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 13, 2025
Background
On August 1, 2025, Daryl Stephen filed a combined motion seeking reconsideration of portions of the court’s July 24, 2025 order and permission to file a sealed addendum and part of the motion under seal. The court granted the request to seal, and Stephen later filed a separate sealed document that the court reviewed.
The reconsideration request challenged the earlier order’s denial of Stephen’s request for a general order allowing him to bring a mobile phone into the courthouse and for “protective relief.” The opinion does not further define the requested protective relief.
Legal standard
The court applied a strict standard for reconsideration. A moving party must show that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters presented in the earlier motion. The court also stated that reconsideration may be supported by an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error that could reasonably change the result.
Ruling
The court held that nothing in Stephen’s submissions, including the sealed document, gave a reason to reconsider the earlier order. It found that Stephen had not identified an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error that could reasonably alter the prior conclusion.
Judge John G. Koeltl therefore denied Stephen’s August 1, 2025 motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 275. The clerk was directed to mail and email a copy of the order to Stephen and note the mailing on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.