State National Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. The County of Camden, Defendant Civil No. 08-5128 (NLH/AMD) Signed December 03, 2013 Donio, Anne Marie, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter comes before the Court by way of motion of Plaintiff, State National Insurance Company (hereinafter, “State National”), for reconsideration of the Court's September 13, 2013 Order concerning State National's obligation to produce certain electronically stored information. (See Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 596].) The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions, and decides this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b).[1] For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies State National's motion. The Court's prior Orders sets forth the background and procedural history in this litigation, and shall not be reiterated herein. For the purposes of the motion presently pending before the Court, the Court notes that by oral Opinion on the record on September 9, 2013, the Court granted the informal application of Defendant County of Camden (hereinafter, the “County”) and denied State National's informal application. (See generally Transcript [Doc. No. 592], 27:8-34:13.) Thereafter, by Order dated September 13, 2013, the Court “supplement[ed] the Court's oral opinion[,]” and “further set[ ] forth the reasoning of the September 9, 2013 ruling,” (Order [Doc. No. 585], Sept. 13, 2013, 1), in addition to setting forth the following directives: 1. “ORDERED that State National shall review the subject documents, in addition to all documents resulting from the ‘Anderson’ search as set forth on the record on September 9, 2013, and produce all nonprivileged documents; and it is further 2. ORDERED that, as set forth on the record on September 9, 2013, State National shall, pursuant to State National's obligation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, produce a privilege log setting forth, with specificity, the nature of any documents withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection; and it is further 3. ORDERED that, in lieu of delineating the withheld documents on a privilege log, State National may produce redacted source documents, subject to State National's obligation to provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; and it is further 4. ORDERED that State National shall complete the review set forth herein, and shall provide discoverable documents to the County as set forth on the record on September 9, 2013.” (Id. at 12-13.) In the motion presently pending before the Court, State National generally asserts that “[r]econsideration is [n]ecessary to [c]orrect [c]lear [e]rrors of [l]aw[,]” in light of the Court's purported “fail[uire] to properly apply relevant authority,” “fail[ure] to balance the substantial burden imposed on State National against” the likely benefit of the requested discovery, in addition to the fact that the September 13, 2013 Order “is [allegedly] legally inconsistent with the Court's September 9, 2013 oral Order [.]”[2] (State National Insurance Company's Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of September 13, 2013 Order (hereinafter, “Pl.'s Br.”) [Doc. No. 596-1], 9.) However, despite State National's disagreement with the Court's September 13, 2013 Order, “State National reviewed the 3,763 subject documents and, on September 16, 2013, produced all relevant, non-privileged portions of the documents to the County with privileged information redacted, pursuant to the September 9, 2013 Order” and purportedly “withheld no relevant documents.” (Id. at 8 (emphasis in original).) *2 The County generally asserts that State National's “motion must be denied” because the Court entered the September 13, 2013 Order “after a careful and correct consideration of the relevant law and after properly balancing the competing interests of State National and the County for the discovery at issue.”[3] (Brief of the County of Camden in Opposition to Motion of State National Insurance Company for Reconsideration of the Court's September 13, 2013 Order (hereinafter, “Def.'s Opp'n”) [Doc. No. 599], 7.) The County further asserts that State National's arguments in support of the motion for reconsideration constitute “a red herring” because “the motion is largely moot” in light of State National's “production on September 16, 2013.” (Id. at 13, n.9; see also 1, n.2.) Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) provides that a party moving for reconsideration must set forth “concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes” the Court “overlooked” in its prior decision. L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). “As such, a party seeking reconsideration must satisfy a high burden, and must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not available previously; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 04-2355, 2009 WL 5818836, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2009) (citing Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). “Motions for reconsideration are granted sparingly and only when dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law were brought to the court's attention but not considered.” O.O.C. Apparel, Inc. v. Ross Stores, Inc., No. 04-6409, 2007 WL 869551, at *2 (D.N.J. March 20, 2007) (internal citations omitted). However, a motion for reconsideration does “not provide the parties with an opportunity for asecond bite at the apple[,]” Tishcio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 511, 532 (D.N.J. 1998), nor “a vehicle to re-litigate old matters or argue new matters that could have been raised before the court made its original decision.” Manning v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 12-4466, 2013 WL 2285955, at *2 (D.N.J. May 23, 2013) (citing P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001; Tishcio, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 532). Indeed, “[m]ere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law and should be dealt with through the normal appellate process[.]” Schiano v. MBNA Corp., No. 05-1771, 2006 WL 3831225, *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 2006) (internal citations omitted). In this case, in light of State National's “September 16, 2013 [ ] produc [tion] [of] all relevant, non-privileged portions of the documents to the County with privileged information redacted[,]” (Pl.'s Br. [Doc. No. 596-1], 8 (emphasis in original)), the Court finds that State National's production on September 16, 2013 renders the pending motion for reconsideration moot. See HR Tech., Inc. v. Imura Int'l U.S.A., Inc., No 08-2220, 2011 WL 1527019, *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 20, 2011) (noting that production of documents “would have rendered the motion [for reconsideration] effectively moot”); A.I.A. Holdings, S.A. v. Lehman Bros., Inc., No. 97-4978, 2001 WL 366430, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2001) (denying a motion for reconsideration as “moot” because “the documents in issue have been produced in unredacted form”). *3 State National further asserts that the Court's September 9, 2013 Order “did not accurately reflect the Court's September 9, 2013” oral Opinion, because the “September 9, 2013 Order permitted State National to produce redacted versions of its documents as a complete alternative to preparing a privilege log[;]” while, the Court's September 13, 2013 Order “afford[ed] State National the choice of preparing a privilege log or “[i]n the alternative” producing its documents in redacted form,” but required compliance “with the requirements under Rule 26[,]” “i.e., [producing] a privilege log.” (Pl.'s Br. [Doc. No. 596-1], 18-19 (emphasis in original).) The County asserts that the Court's Order contained no ambiguity (see Def.'s Opp'n [Doc. No. 599], 13), and that, “[i]t is clear from a reading of the transcript of the September 9th hearing that the Court is equating the Rule 26 requirements with the production of the header information for the emails.” (Def.'s Opp'n [Doc. No. 599], 13.) Moreover, the County does not take exception to the manner in which State National produced the documents.[4] The Court agrees with the County and concludes that the oral Opinion dated September 9, 2013 (see generally Transcript [Doc. No. 592], 27:8-34:13) and the Order dated September 13, 2013 (Order [Doc. No. 585], Sept. 13, 2013, 12-13) are consistent. To the extent State National seeks clarification, the Court hereby clarifies that discoverable documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 should be produced in one of two manners: (1) by producing the nonprivileged documents, while setting forth any withheld documents on a privilege log; or (2) by providing redacted source documents as agreed to by the County on the record on September 9, 2013. The Court finds the remaining arguments proffered by State National fail to identify valid grounds for reconsideration. Rather, State National merely delineates various disagreements with the Court's application of the law, in addition to the manner in which the Court considered the previously-submitted evidence. Specifically, State National broadly asserts that the Court fundamentally misinterpreted “Relevant Case Law” and proceeds to reargue and/or distinguish case law previously considered by the Court. (Pl.'s Br. [Doc. No. 596-1], 10-16.) However, “[m]ere disagreement with a decision of the district court should normally be raised through the appellate process and is inappropriate on a motion for reconsideration.” S.C. v. Deptford Twp. Bd. of Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003); see also Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., No. 90-0049, 2007 WL 1598103, at *1 (D.N.J. May 30, 2007) (denying the motion for reconsideration as “a blatant request for relitigation”). State National's assertions do not allege any “intervening change in controlling law” or “the availability of new evidence not available previously[,]” Altana Pharma, 2009 WL 5818836, at *1, and State National must show more than a mere “recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision[.]” Harnish v. Widener Univ. School of Law, No. 12-0608, 2013 WL 1890276, at *1 (D.N.J. May 3, 2013) (citations omitted). State National also asserts that the Court's purported failure to consider State National's “cumulative impact” (id. at 20) and to weigh such “cumulative burden” against “the value of the requested information” “result [ed] in the issuance of an Order that is manifestly unjust to State National.” (Id. at 24.) However, State National's disagreement with the Court's assessment of the relevant evidence fails to constitute the sort of “clear error” or “manifest injustice” that necessitates reconsideration. Cf. Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc., 176 F.3d at 677-79 (citing a “clear error of law and fact” and finding reconsideration appropriate where the district court held a limited liability company in contempt despite the fact that the company incorporated six months after the “contumacious acts”); Leja v. Schmidt Mfg., Inc., No. 01-5042, 2010 WL 2681975, at *7 (D.N.J. July 1, 2010) (granting partial reconsideration because refusal to do so “would result in manifest injustice by precluding what may otherwise be a meritorious cause of action”). Therefore, the Court finds that State National has not established that reconsideration is warranted. See Fink v. EdgeLink, Inc., No. 09-5078, 2012 WL 6616492, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2012) (denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, which “simply expressed disagreement with the [c]ourt's decision[,]” “an inadequate basis for reconsideration”). Consequently, for the reasons set forth herein, and for good cause shown, *4 IT IS on this 2nd day of December 2013, ORDERED that State National's motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 13, 2013 Order [Doc. No. 596] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that, on December 10, 2013 at 3:00 P.M., the Court shall address the issues presented in the County's October 7, 2013 letter [Doc. No. 600], and State National's letter [Doc. No. 601] dated October 9, 2013. Footnotes [1] The Court denies State National's request for oral argument as unnecessary. Ashmore v. Ashmore, 485 Fed.Appx. 597, 601 (3d Cir. 2012) (“request for oral argument is denied as unnecessary”); see also L. CIV. R. 78.1(b). [2] The Court notes that State National's twenty-four page brief in support of the motion for reconsideration far exceeds the fifteen page limitation set forth by Local Civil Rule 7.2(b). However, the Court shall not deny State National's motion on that basis, see, e.g., In re Nice Sys., LTD. Sec. Litig., 135 F. Supp. 2d 551, 558 n.6 (D.N.J. 2001) (noting the court's earlier denial of a motion “without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Civil Rules”), nor shall the Court require State National to resubmit acompliant brief. See, e.g., Alan A. v. Verniero, 970 F. Supp. 1153, 1160 n.2 (D.N.J. 1997) (noting the court's earlier directive requiring that, in light of the plaintiffs' “grossly overlength” brief, the plaintiffs refile a brief “in accordance with Local Civil 7.2(b)”). Rather, the Court denies State National's motion for the reasons set forth herein. [3] By letter dated October 4, 2013, the County sought leave to file an overlength brief in opposition to State National's motion, in light of the length of State National's submission, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.2(b). (See Letter [Doc. No. 598], 2.) The Court grants the County's informal application to file an overlength brief. [4] Rather, the County takes issue with “certain redactions by State National[,]” (Def.'s Opp'n [Doc. No. 599], 1 n.2), and has requested an in camera review “to verify if avalid privilege exists to support the redactions.” (Letter [Doc. No. 600], 3.) The Court shall address the issues presented in the County's October 7, 2013 letter at the hearing on December 10, 2013.