Lack v. Caesars Enterainment Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-05394
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lack v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, Judge Briccetti denied Myrna Lack’s request to reconsider an earlier discovery ruling.
Myrna Lack’s request to obtain additional surveillance video and a risk-management deposition was denied; the defendants opposed that request.
What happened
In Lack v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, Myrna Lack asked the court to reconsider its denial of her request for six additional hours of surveillance video and a deposition of someone from the defendants’ risk-management department. The video concerns Lack’s fall, which is the subject of the lawsuit.
The court found that Lack had not presented new evidence showing that the additional video existed. It also found that the information she offered about the risk-management department had been available for months or years and did not explain why the requested deposition was warranted.
The court denied Lack’s motion for reconsideration and instructed the Clerk to terminate it. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ruled that reconsideration requires a change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness.
The detailed version
- Lack v. Caesars Enterainment Corporation · No. 7:20-cv-05394
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 4, 2022
Background
Myrna Lack moved for reconsideration of the court’s March 25, 2022, denial of her motion to compel discovery. She sought six additional hours of surveillance video concerning her fall and the deposition of a person from the defendants’ risk-management department. The defendants are Caesars Entertainment Corporation, Harrah’s Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC, Harrah’s Atlantic City Propco LLC, and Harrah’s Bossier City Investment Company, LLC.
Legal standard
A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The court explained that such a motion requires an intervening change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The evidence must be truly newly discovered or something that could not have been found through reasonable diligence before the original motion was decided. Reconsideration is not meant to repeat arguments that the court already considered and decided.
Court’s analysis
As to the surveillance video, Lack relied on testimony that it would have been good practice to preserve more than one hour of video and that no one had tried to obtain a copy of the deleted video. The court concluded that neither statement suggested that the additional deleted video still existed.
As to the requested risk-management deposition, Lack relied on defendants’ interrogatory answers, an incident report containing a risk-management tab, and a November 1, 2019, letter acknowledging receipt of her claim. The court found that these materials were not newly discovered because Lack had possessed them for months or years. The court also found that Lack did not explain how the materials related to the subjects for which she sought a witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), including the department’s operations, prior slip-and-fall cases against the defendants, and prior casino-floor testing.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Lack’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion, identified as Document 65.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.