Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC

Background

Plaintiffs filed summary-judgment motions against defendant SK Management of New York, Inc. (SKM). SKM obtained two extensions to respond. On October 26, 2021, it filed two counter-statements of material facts and a five-page opposition brief addressing both motions. The brief did not contain an attorney signature block or signature.

After plaintiffs’ counsel alerted SKM’s attorneys to the problem, SKM did not promptly correct the unsigned filing. Plaintiffs then moved to strike the brief. Instead of striking it, the court directed SKM to refile its existing opposition brief with an attorney’s signature by December 3, 2021, and expressly prohibited SKM from expanding the brief or adding arguments.

SKM filed an 11-page brief on December 3, adding six pages that plaintiffs and the court had not previously seen. The court’s December 6 order declined to strike the entire brief but stated that the first five pages would be accepted and pages six through eleven would be disregarded. The court did not reopen the briefing schedule for plaintiffs.

Motion and governing standards

SKM sought relief under several possible rules, including Rule 72(a), which permits objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order, Rule 60, which permits relief from certain orders, and Local Civil Rule 6.3, which governs reconsideration motions in the Southern District of New York. The court had directed SKM to clarify whether it was seeking review by the district judge or reconsideration by the magistrate judge. Because SKM did not clearly choose between those forms of relief, the court construed the filing as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3.

That rule imposes a strict standard. The moving party must identify controlling decisions or material facts that were before the court but were overlooked and that could have affected the earlier decision. A reconsideration motion cannot be used simply to relitigate issues, present new theories, or obtain another opportunity to argue the case. The court also considered SKM’s request under Rule 60(b)(1), which allows relief from an order for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect in appropriate circumstances.

Court’s analysis

The court held that SKM did not identify anything that had been before the court but overlooked when the December 6 order was issued. SKM had not previously raised its explanation that the law firm formerly associated with attorney Marcus A. Nussbaum was winding down and that this allegedly prevented retrieval of the complete brief. The court stated that SKM should have informed plaintiffs and the court of the problem and sought additional time rather than remaining silent for more than a month.

The court also found SKM’s explanation inadequate. It noted that SKM was represented by Nussbaum and attorney Ronald Coleman, both of whom could file documents electronically, and it did not understand how the winding down of another law office prevented them from correcting the filing or reproducing the missing pages.

The court further concluded that restoring the six pages and reopening briefing would delay the case and unfairly shift the cost of SKM’s conduct to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had already responded to SKM’s timely factual submissions and filed their reply papers. The court found no reason to require plaintiffs to redo that work.

Finally, the court ruled that SKM did not meet the standard for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Even accepting SKM’s claim that the shortened October 26 filing was inadvertent, the court found SKM’s failure to correct the problem during the following month unjustified.

Disposition

The court denied SKM’s reconsideration motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close the letter-motion at docket number 964. The December 6 order therefore remained in place, including the direction that pages six through eleven of SKM’s refiled opposition brief would be disregarded. This order addressed SKM’s request to revisit the briefing-related order; it did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motions.