Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

Ashu Shukla filed two motions: a motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier order and a motion asking the court to seal the papers supporting that request.

The reconsideration motion concerned earlier rulings involving Shukla’s Second Amended Complaint and his request that the court recuse itself. The court explained that Shukla had already sought reconsideration of those matters and that the court had denied that earlier reconsideration motion on December 8, 2020.

Reconsideration Motion

The court denied the motion for reconsideration as untimely. Local Civil Rule 6.3 required the motion to be served within 14 days after the original decision. Shukla filed it 72 days after the December 8, 2020 decision and offered no good cause for the delay.

The court also denied the motion on the merits. It explained that reconsideration is appropriate only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. The court found that Shukla identified none of those grounds and was instead attempting to relitigate issues already decided. The court stated that Shukla could not continue through an endless chain of motions asking the court to reconsider prior rulings.

Motion to Seal

The court denied the motion to seal as moot in part, granted it in part, and denied it in part.

The court denied as moot the request to seal Shukla’s memorandum of law because Shukla had publicly filed a copy of it as an attachment to a letter to District Judge Nathan.

The court granted the request to seal Exhibits A, B, and C to Shukla’s supporting affidavit. Those exhibits included internal emails and other files produced by Deloitte Consulting LLP in discovery, as well as documents concerning Shukla’s application for benefits from the State of New Jersey. The court found that these documents raised privacy concerns sufficient to overcome the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.

The court denied the request to seal Shukla’s supporting affidavit, Exhibits D through I, and the certificate of service because those documents did not raise privacy concerns sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. The Clerk was directed to unseal ECF Nos. 210, 210-1, and 210-5 through 210-11.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration was denied as untimely and denied on the merits. The motion to seal was denied as moot in part, granted in part, and denied in part. Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.