Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-00775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC, Judge Willis denied renewed requests to disqualify counsel and speed discovery, and adjourned the October 18 argument.
Philip Columbo, the defendants, their counsel, and the discovery process in the case.
What happened
In Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC, Philip Columbo again asked the court to disqualify defendants’ counsel and allow expedited discovery. The court had already denied identical requests and had stayed discovery while motions to dismiss were pending.
The court treated the new requests as asking it to reconsider its earlier decision. It found that Columbo relied on the same case law and offered no new evidence, controlling decisions, or factual information that could change the result.
United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied the cross-motions and adjourned the October 18, 2023 oral argument indefinitely. The court stated that future requests about disqualifying counsel or speeding discovery should include new information.
The detailed version
- Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00775
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Philip Columbo had previously filed cross-motions seeking to disqualify defendants’ counsel and expedite discovery. On November 22, 2022, the court denied those motions. On December 20, 2022, the court stayed discovery while motions to dismiss were being resolved. In opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss, Columbo included identical cross-motions.
Defendants argued that repeating arguments already rejected by the court was an impermissible second attempt to obtain the same relief. The court agreed and treated the new requests as motions for reconsideration of its earlier ruling.
Legal standard and analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is generally appropriate only when the moving party shows that the court overlooked controlling legal decisions or factual matters presented in the original motion, and that considering them might reasonably have changed the result. The court found that Columbo cited the same case law cited in the earlier request and presented no new evidence, controlling decisions, or factual matters warranting reconsideration.
Ruling
For the reasons stated in its prior order, the court denied Columbo’s cross-motions to disqualify counsel and expedite discovery. It also adjourned the oral argument scheduled for October 18, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., without setting a new date. The court stated that it was not likely to entertain further requests on these issues while motions to dismiss remained pending and that any future requests should present new information in the moving papers.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.