The Electric No. 21

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must “demonstrate that any available factual matters . . . were presented to the court on the underlying motion” (quotations and citations omitted)
• holding that on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must “demonstrate that any available factual matters . . . were presented to the court on the underlying motion” (quotations and citations omitted)
• permitting evidence of a witness’s sexual orientation and marital status given that the Title VII plaintiff was alleging sexual harassment
• finding a failure to provide complete Rule 26 disclosures harmless because the opposing party was on notice of the proposed witnesses’ relevant knowledge and had ample opportunity to take depositions
• “This argument is not a proper ground for . . . reconsideration because [the movant] failed to raise it in connection with the underlying summary judgment motion, and has no apparent excuse for this failure.”
• “A motion for reconsideration is not intended as a vehicle for a party dissatisfied with the Court’s ruling to advance new theories that the movant failed to advance in connection with the underlying motion . . .” (quotations and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).