Girl Scouts of the United States of America v. Boy Scouts of America
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:18-cv-10287
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Girl Scouts v. Boy Scouts, Judge Hellerstein denied reconsideration of an order barring a new consumer-survey expert report.
Girl Scouts of the United States of America was affected because the court denied its request to reconsider the refusal to allow an additional consumer-survey expert report; Boy Scouts of America was affected by the continuation of that ruling.
What happened
In Girl Scouts of the United States of America v. Boy Scouts of America, the plaintiff asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying permission to serve an expert report about a new consumer survey.
The court said reconsideration is available only when it overlooked controlling law or important facts that could have changed the result. The plaintiff did not identify overlooked law or facts, and the court rejected its effort to characterize the survey as a rebuttal. The court also noted an agreed deadline for exchanging consumer-survey expert reports, the plaintiff’s two existing reports, and its view that another report would be disproportionate to the case’s needs.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Girl Scouts of the United States of America v. Boy Scouts of America · No. 1:18-cv-10287
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
The plaintiff moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the court’s September 3, 2020 decision denying its request to serve an expert report concerning a new consumer survey called the NERA Survey. The opinion states that the parties had stipulated to December 19, 2019, as the deadline for exchanging expert reports showing the results of consumer surveys. It also states that the plaintiff had already served two expert reports concerning consumer surveys in support of its claims.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. It should be granted only when the court overlooked controlling legal authority or factual matters presented on the original motion that might reasonably have changed the result. The court also said that reconsideration cannot be used to repeat arguments already decided, present theories that could have been raised earlier, or obtain a new hearing on the merits of the earlier motion.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the plaintiff had not identified controlling law, factual matters, or clear error that the court had overlooked. Instead, the plaintiff sought to relitigate issues already considered. The court rejected the plaintiff’s characterization of the NERA Survey report as a “rebuttal,” explaining that the expert’s purported rerunning of a survey similar in several respects to the defendant’s survey did not change the earlier determination. The court noted that these arguments had already been raised and rejected.
The court also found no manifest injustice in holding the plaintiff to its agreed commitments. Separately, even assuming that prior scheduling orders did not bar the report, the court continued to find that the additional report and survey would be disproportionate to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).
Disposition
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to close the open motion. This order addressed the request to serve the additional expert report; it did not decide the underlying claims between the parties.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied reconsideration of an earlier discovery-related ruling rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.