Asks the court to revisit a prior ruling. Requires new law, new evidence, or clear error — not just disagreement.
A request asking the court to revisit a prior ruling. Federal courts apply a high bar: the movant must show (1) intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence that wasn't available before, or (3) a clear error of law. Re-arguing the same theory is not a basis.
Filed shortly after an adverse ruling on a substantive issue — denial of summary judgment, a discovery sanction, an evidentiary ruling. Some district courts have local rules specifying tight deadlines (often 14-28 days).
Opposes by arguing the motion is improperly trying to relitigate, that no new law or evidence is presented, or that any error is harmless.
Almost always denied. The narrow grounds make wins rare; courts caution that reconsideration motions are not a 'second bite at the apple.' Granted reconsiderations sometimes change only part of the original order.