Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-06626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Actava TV v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide," Judge Carter denied both sides’ motions to reconsider delaying summary-judgment decisions.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected: both reconsideration motions were denied, and the parties were ordered to submit a proposed schedule for renewed summary-judgment motions.
What happened
In Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide," the parties had asked the court to reconsider its earlier order. That order allowed defendants to file a challenge to plaintiffs’ expert evidence and denied the parties’ summary-judgment motions while allowing them to renew those motions later.
Plaintiffs argued that their summary-judgment motion did not depend on the evidence challenged by defendants and should be treated as ready for decision. Defendants opposed plaintiffs’ request and alternatively asked the court to reconsider the timing so both summary-judgment motions could be decided together.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied plaintiffs’ motion and defendants’ cross-motion. He concluded that neither side met the strict standard for reconsideration and ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule for renewed summary-judgment motions by March 20, 2023.
The detailed version
- Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" · No. 1:18-cv-06626
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 15, 2023
Background
The court had previously allowed defendants to file a motion under Daubert challenging the admissibility of the report and proposed testimony of plaintiffs’ damages expert, Dr. William O. Kerr. Because that challenge concerned evidence submitted with the parties’ pending summary-judgment motions, the court’s March 31, 2022 order denied the summary-judgment motions and related motions with leave to renew after the court decided the Daubert motion.
Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration of the part of that order denying their summary-judgment motion without prejudice. Plaintiffs asked the court to treat their motion as fully submitted because, they argued, it did not rely on the evidence defendants sought to challenge. Defendants opposed plaintiffs’ motion and filed a cross-motion for reconsideration, arguing that if plaintiffs’ request were granted, the court should decide both summary-judgment motions at the same time.
Legal standard
Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration is available only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court described this as a strict standard and noted that reconsideration is generally disfavored.
Reasoning
The court held that plaintiffs had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error requiring correction. It reiterated that both parties could renew their summary-judgment motions after the court ruled on defendants’ Daubert motion and that the court had discretion to control the timing of motions.
The court also denied defendants’ cross-motion. It noted that defendants themselves had asked the court to decide the Daubert motion before resolving the summary-judgment motions.
Disposition
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and denied defendants’ cross-motion for reconsideration. It directed the clerk to terminate the docket entries for those motions and ordered the parties to file a proposed briefing schedule for their renewed summary-judgment motions by March 20, 2023. The order did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.