OPINION & ORDER On August 29, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committees’ (“PECs”) motion to compel Defendants World Assembly of Muslim Youth Saudi Arabia (“WAMY SA”) and World Assembly of Muslim Youth International (“WAMY Int’l”) (collectively, “WAMY”). ECF No. 4130. On September 12, 2018, WAMY filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3. ECF No. 4164. The PECs filed an opposition on October 10, and WAMY filed a reply on October 31. ECF Nos. 4209, 4239. WAMY’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.BACKGROUNDOn February 28, 2018, the PECs filed a motion to compel WAMY to produce all documents responsive to the PECs’ document requests. ECF No. 3911. The PECs argued, among other things, that WAMY had not produced “full, complete, and organized sets of documents for each of WAMY’s branch offices.” Id. at 5. While acknowledging that they had received “some reports” from “a handful of offices,” the PECs maintained that WAMY’s production was substantially incomplete, particularly with respect to banking records. Id. To show that further documentation must exist, the PECs emphasized that the branch offices were required to transmit regular reports regarding their activities and finances to WAMY headquarters. Id.; WAMYSA051694-95 at Ex. 11; WAMYSAE001128-29 at Ex. 12.WAMY opposed the PECs’ motion to compel. ECF No. 3949. Regarding their branch offices, WAMY argued that the PECs failed to identify which specific reports were missing from a given office. Id. at 11. Such broad complaints, according to WAMY, were insufficient under Local Rule 37.1. Id. at 12.The PECs filed a reply on April 13, 2018. ECF No. 3962. The PECs asserted that WAMY failed to establish an adequate process to identify, secure, and produce responsive documents. Id. at 1. The PECs emphasized that basic documentation from WAMY’s branch offices was entirely missing, and that WAMY’s counsel was unable to articulate a coherent explanation for these gaps in production. Id. at 1-2. Further, the PECs relied upon three letters written by WAMY’s Assistant Secretary General of Offices and International Relations, Dr. Abdul Hameed bin Youssef Al-Mazrou. On October 25, 2011, Dr. Al-Mazrou sent a letter to the branch offices, asking for “reports and information about all projects, programs, and activities implemented by your esteemed office” from 1992 until 2002. Id. at 3 & Ex. 1. A few months later, on April 7, 2012, Dr. Al-Mazrou sent another letter to the branch offices, this time asking them to complete forms detailing the offices’ financial and administrative matters. Id. at 3 & Ex. 2. Finally, on May 5, 2012, Dr. Al-Mazrou requested copies of bank account statements and audited balance sheets. Id. at 3 & Ex. 3. The PECs concluded that Dr. Al-Mazrou’s approach did not reflect an adequate process to secure relevant documents. Id. at 3-4.The Court agreed with the PECs’ position. Pointing to Dr. Al-Mazrou’s letters, the Court found that WAMY did not conduct an adequate search for documents located in its branch offices. ECF No. 4130 at 5. The Court emphasized that defense counsel “should have communicated directly with staff in WAMY’s branch offices and carefully coordinated and supervised their efforts to collect and produce all relevant and responsive documents.” Id. at 6. Accordingly, the Court directed WAMY to conduct a more thorough search for documents located in its branch offices. Id. at 7.On September 12, 2018, WAMY filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 6.3. ECF No. 4165. Specifically, WAMY seeks reconsideration of the Court’s finding that “WAMY did not conduct an adequate search for documents located in its branch offices.” Id. at 1. WAMY argues that it did not have an opportunity to present all material facts to the Court and that those facts would have reasonably altered the Court’s finding. Id. The Court agrees.LEGAL STANDARDThe standards governing a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3 are the same as those under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Abrahamson v. Bd. of Educ., 237 F. Supp. 2d 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). To prevail on such a motion, “the movant must demonstrate an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 154 F. Supp. 2d 696, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Doe v. NYC Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256-57 (2d Cir. 1995). Accordingly, reconsideration is generally denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — in other words, information that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court. Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257).DISCUSSIONWAMY has demonstrated a need to prevent manifest injustice. To begin, WAMY has shown that it conducted an adequate search for records in its branch offices. In October 2011, WAMY’s counsel traveled to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“Saudi Arabia”) for six days to install a system that would ensure a robust document production. ECF No. 4166, Declaration of Omar T. Mohammedi (“Mohammedi Decl.”), at
5-6; ECF No. 4167, Declaration of Frederick J. Goetz (“Goetz Decl.”), at4.1 WAMY established a “search team,” composed of over 150 delegates, including high-ranking WAMY officials, regional office heads, and the heads of branch offices. Mohammedi Decl., at7; Goetz Decl., at5. Counsel trained the search team on WAMY’s discovery obligations under the Federal Rules. Mohammedi Decl., at8; Goetz Decl., at
