Goldner v. Ralph Edwards/Stu Billett Productions
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-02764
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Goldner v. Ralph Edwards/Stu Billett Productions, Judge Torres denied Goldner’s reconsideration request because he showed no overlooked law or facts.
Marc Goldner, who represented himself, was directly affected because the court denied his request to reconsider the earlier denial of a temporary restraining order. The defendants were affected because that earlier denial remained in place.
What happened
In Goldner v. Ralph Edwards/Stu Billett Productions, Marc Goldner, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its April 6, 2020 denial of his request for an emergency order.
The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only when a party identifies important facts or controlling legal decisions the court overlooked. Goldner did not identify any such facts or legal decisions, and he did not show that the court’s conclusion about the requested order was wrong.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the motion for reconsideration. The April 6 denial of the emergency order therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- Goldner v. Ralph Edwards/Stu Billett Productions · No. 1:20-cv-02764
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 9, 2020
Background
On April 6, 2020, the court denied Marc Goldner’s application for a temporary restraining order. The opinion states that Goldner was representing himself. On April 8, he asked the court to reconsider the April 6 order.
Legal standard
Under Local Rule 6.3, reconsideration is a narrow remedy. A party must identify controlling decisions or facts that were presented earlier but overlooked and that could reasonably change the result. The court emphasized that reconsideration is not an opportunity to present new facts or arguments or repeat arguments already rejected.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Goldner had not raised any facts or legal authorities that the court had not already considered. He also did not identify controlling decisions contradicting the court’s earlier conclusion that the requested temporary restraining order would be an unjustified prior restraint and would not serve the public interest. The court additionally noted that representing oneself does not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive legal rules.
Disposition
The court denied Goldner’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not provide further details about the underlying claims or the defendants’ positions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.