Goodman v. The City of New York

Issues Before the Court

The Court addressed two matters:

1. Non-party Swiegert’s request to reconsider the Court’s earlier denial of his motion to intervene in the case. 2. Plaintiff Jason Goodman’s motion to hold Swiegert and Defendant Adam Sharp in contempt of court.

Reconsideration Request

The Court denied Swiegert’s request for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration is generally not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain a second hearing on the merits, or take another opportunity to make the same arguments. The Court stated that reconsideration ordinarily requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the Court overlooked.

Swiegert relied on what he described as newly discovered evidence. The Court found that the evidence showed only a reputational interest in the litigation. It concluded that this interest was insufficient to justify intervention, consistent with the case law the Court cited.

Contempt Motion

The Court also denied Goodman’s motion for contempt and stated that no response was necessary. To establish contempt, a party must show that the relevant order was clear and unambiguous, that the violation was proved by clear and convincing evidence, and that the accused party did not make a diligent, reasonable effort to comply.

Goodman argued that Swiegert violated the Court’s order directing Swiegert not to file in the case. The Court determined that filing a motion asking the Court to reconsider its earlier denial of Swiegert’s intervention motion was not a violation of that order.

Disposition

The Court denied Swiegert’s request for reconsideration and denied Goodman’s contempt motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 59, the contempt motion.