Mphasis Corporation v. Rojas
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mphasis v. Rojas, Magistrate Judge Wang denied Rojas’s request to reconsider $9,194.41 in laptop-imaging sanctions.
Albert Rojas remains subject to the $9,194.41 sanctions imposed to compensate Mphasis Corporation for the actual cost of arranging the laptop imaging.
What happened
Mphasis Corporation v. Albert Rojas concerns sanctions imposed after Rojas did not provide his laptop for forensic imaging as directed. The sanctions were meant to reimburse Mphasis Corporation for the actual cost of arranging that imaging.
Rojas asked the court to reconsider, arguing that he was a federally protected whistleblower, had objected to the imaging order, had acted in good faith, and could not afford the sanctions. He also argued that the order was invalid because the laptop was personal rather than issued by Mphasis Corporation.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang denied reconsideration. She said Rojas presented no new facts or law and was repeating arguments already rejected, while failing to identify a clear error in the earlier orders or address his conduct that led to the imaging costs.
The detailed version
- Mphasis Corporation v. Rojas · No. 1:25-cv-03175
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
The court had imposed sanctions of $9,194.41 against Defendant Albert Rojas. The sanctions were intended to compensate Plaintiff Mphasis Corporation for the actual cost of arranging a forensic image of Rojas’s laptop after Rojas did not provide the laptop for imaging as directed.
Rojas moved for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3. He argued that he was a federally protected whistleblower, had timely objected to the imaging order, had complied in good faith, and that the sanctions would have a disproportionate and chilling effect on federal whistleblowers. He also argued that the imaging order was invalid because the laptop was personal and had not been issued by Mphasis Corporation. Rojas further asserted that he could not afford the sanctions.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and is generally available only when the moving party identifies controlling law or facts the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. A reconsideration motion cannot be used simply to relitigate issues already decided or to present new versions of previously rejected arguments.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Rojas had raised no new facts or law. It stated that he repeated arguments previously addressed and rejected three times: twice by the court and once by Judge Furman. The court also found that Rojas identified no clear error in the sanctions order, the order requiring him to explain his conduct, or the imaging order. Instead, the court said, he sought to relitigate whether his laptop should be imaged and did not address the conduct that resulted in the imaging costs.
The court acknowledged Rojas’s financial situation but stated that the sanctions were limited to Mphasis Corporation’s actual costs caused by his failure to bring the laptop for imaging. It concluded that Mphasis Corporation should not have to pay those costs because of Rojas’s conduct.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang denied Rojas’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF 406. The opinion does not state that the sanctions were reduced, vacated, or otherwise changed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.