Judge William Kuntz
Another judge’s prior interlocutory order denied defendant IVI Environmental Inc. (IVI) summary judgment. Rather than styling its motion to reverse, rescind, vacate or modify that order as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), IVI styled its motion as being a new motion for summary judgment. Noting that both a renewed motion for summary judgment and a motion for reconsideration are governed by the “law of the case” doctrine, the court observed that district courts within the Second Circuit strictly adhere to the doctrine and generally decline to reverse or modify an earlier interlocutory order. Thus the only basis on which the court could reconsider the earlier summary judgment denial order is the presence of new evidence. To prevail on its renewed motion, IVI must show that its purported new evidence—an April 30, 2013, deposition statement by the party signing the subject settlement and release agreement on plaintiffs’ behalf—was not in its possession or unavailable upon the exercise of due diligence when IVI made its first motion for summary judgment, and that manifest injustice will result if the court does not reconsider the earlier summary judgment decision.