Minden Pictures Inc. v. Gizmodo Media Group LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-02116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Minden Pictures v. Gizmodo Media Group, Judge Schofield denied Gizmodo’s motion to reconsider an earlier refusal to pause discovery.
Gizmodo Media Group LLC’s request to reconsider the denial of a discovery stay was denied; Minden Pictures, Inc. was not ordered to post a security bond.
What happened
In Minden Pictures Inc. v. Gizmodo Media Group LLC, the court had earlier denied Gizmodo’s request to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending and denied its request for a security bond.
Gizmodo then asked the court to reconsider the decision about pausing discovery. The court said reconsideration requires a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motion because Gizmodo had not identified any of those circumstances.
The detailed version
- Minden Pictures Inc. v. Gizmodo Media Group LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02116
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 19, 2020
Background
On October 5, 2020, the court denied Gizmodo Media Group LLC’s motion to stay, or pause, discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending. The court also denied Gizmodo’s request that Minden Pictures, Inc. post a security bond.
On October 12, 2020, Gizmodo asked the court to reconsider its decision denying a stay of discovery.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court also stated that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain a second opportunity to argue the matter.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Gizmodo’s motion for reconsideration. The court found that Gizmodo had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or manifest injustice. This order addressed reconsideration of the discovery-stay decision; it did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.