Opinion
00 Civ. 6322 (LAK)
March 14, 2001
ORDER
Although this case has been dismissed and a motion for reconsideration of that ruling denied, plaintiffs have moved for leave to file the affidavit of J. Douglas Richards, and exhibits thereto, dated February 13, 2001, in support of the latter motion. The real purpose of the motion is to place in the record for purposes of appeal materials that were not submitted to the district court in opposition to the motions to dismiss.
There is absolutely no justification for this motion subsequent to the dismissal of the action. Although it ostensibly is filed in support of the now-denied motion for reconsideration under S.D.N.Y. Civ.R. 6.3, such motions are appropriate only to bring the Court's attention to evidence or authority it overlooked. They are not appropriate vehicles for supplementing the record by putting in evidence after the motion has been denied that counsel never tendered in the first place.
Counsel's excuse for failing to put the evidence in earlier also is deficient. He acknowledges that he had the material prior to the dismissal and intended to submit it, but failed to do so because he was surprised when the motion was decided without oral argument. That excuse would be insufficient even if he were justified in being surprised. But he was not. As the individual practices of this Court make clear, it hears oral argument on motions only in those cases in which it regards argument as likely to be helpful. Those practices are given to persons filing complaints and available in several publications and on the Court's web site.1 This was not such a case.
While the point is entirely superfluous in light of the foregoing, the Court has reviewed the belated materials. Nothing in them would have altered the decision.
SO ORDERED.