The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN E. JONES, District Judge
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's September 7, 2005 Order ("the Motion") (doc. 174) filed
by Courtroom Television Network LLC ("Court TV"), on September 9,
2005. The Motion shall be denied.
Motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly as
federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of
judgments. Burger King Corp. v. New England Hood & Duct Cleaning
Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2000). "The
purpose of a motion for reconsideration . . . is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986)). Accordingly, as the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, a judgment may be
altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at
least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." North
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d
Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted).
"A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to
reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt
to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the
litigant." Abu-Jamal v. Horn, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa.
2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F.Supp.2d 588, 606
(M.D. Pa. 2002).
In the Motion, Court TV respectfully requests the following:
"that the Court reconsider its denial of Court TV's motion to
intervene; permit Court TV to intervene and deem filed its
unopposed motion to record and telecast; on the basis of a full
record, reconsider its conclusion that it does not have the power
to grant the motion to record and telecast; and grant the motion to record
and telecast the trial of this matter." (Court TV's Br. Supp.
Mot. Reconsid. at 13).
After a careful review of Court TV's Motion and accompanying
submissions, we do not find that Court TV has demonstrated any
one of the following necessary to alter or amend our September 7,
2005 Order: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence that was not previously
available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice. North River Ins. Co.,
52 F.3d at 1218.
Accordingly, Court TV's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's September 7, 2005 Order is denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Court TV's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's September 7, 2005 Order ...