Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

IU Ey ELECTRONICALLY FILI DOC #: □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT bare FileD: □□□□□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Shukla, Plaintiff, 19-cv-10578 (AJN) —V— ORDER Deloitte LLP, Defendants. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 29, 2021 Order denying various motions and addressing Plaintiffs improperly filed letters. Dkt. 289. A motion for reconsideration is appropriate if the Court has overlooked “an intervening change of controlling law,” there is “the availability of new evidence,” or there is otherwise a “need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013). Plaintiff has not satisfied this standard and his motion is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff has also filed a “motion to vacate” Judge Aaron’s July 9, 2021 Order requiring Plaintiff to inform the Court of whether he intends to appear for his deposition. Dkt. No. 295. The Court construes this filing as an objection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Plaintiffs objection is meritless and is therefore OVERRULED. Plaintiff is again warned that his continued defiance of court orders will result in sanctions. Plaintiff continues to improperly assert accusations of bias against Judge Aaron and claims that he has “disqualified” Judge Aaron from this case. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 276, 285. Plaintiff has already moved to disqualify Judge Aaron from this case or have him recused, and ] because those requests were denied, see Dkt. No. 103, 120, Judge Aaron continues to preside over this case. Plaintiffs stated belief that Judge Aaron’s orders are “biased” has no impact on his obligation to comply with those orders and Plaintiffs continued accusations of bias outside of a non-frivolous motion for recusal violate rule # 5 of the Court’s June 14, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order (Dkt. No. 267). Plaintiff must follow the orders of Judge Aaron, including those pertaining to Plaintiff’s deposition (Dkt. Nos. 286 and 294), or he will be subject to sanctions, which could include dismissal of his case. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 289 and 295. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444- 45 (1962). SO ORDERED. h Ii. 1g Dated: July 13, 2021 ‘ New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge