1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MUNICIPAL REVENUE : Case No.: 4:05CV671

SERVICES, INC. :

:

Plaintiff : Judge Jones

:

v. :

:

XSPAND, INC., :

:

Defendant :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

May 17, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider (“the Motion”)(doc. 34)

the Court’s May 4, 2005 Order filed by Plaintiff Municipal Revenue Services, Inc.

(“Plaintiff” or “MRS”) on May 13, 2005. For the reasons that follow, the Motion

will be denied. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

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

Case 4:05-cv-00671-JEJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 4
2

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, 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

available when the court granted the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear error

of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citing North River Ins. Co. v.

CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). 

“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, No. CIV. A.

99-5089, 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). 

DISCUSSION:

In our May 4, 2005 Order, we granted a Motion to Extend Deadline filed by

Defendant Xspand, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Xspand”) to the extent that we extended

briefing deadlines related to Plaintiff’s previously filed Motion for a Preliminary

Case 4:05-cv-00671-JEJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 4
1

 In our May 4, 2005 Order we noted that based upon our knowledge of the expedited

discovery in the case, the conclusion of the expedited discovery period would likely be measured

from the date of the last deposition; however, we explained that if any unclarity exists with

respect to the date triggering Defendant’s period to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction, that both parties shall jointly contact the Court. (See Rec. Doc. 27 at 2). 

3

Injunction. See Rec. Doc. 27. We directed that Defendant shall have five days

from the conclusion of the expedited discovery to file a brief in opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and that Plaintiff shall have five

days from the receipt of Defendant’s submission to file a reply brief if it so

desires.1

 We denied Defendant’s Motion in all other respects. 

In its Motion, Plaintiff states that it has no objection to the parties submitting

supplemental briefing upon the completion of expedited discovery, but in order to

avoid prejudice to Plaintiff, and to properly prepare for discovery, Plaintiff needs

to ascertain what positions Defendant is adopting on the various legal and factual

issues set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, before the

depositions occur. (Pl.’s Mot. Reconsid. at 1-2). Plaintiff explains that before the

Court granted Defendant’s request to extend the briefing schedule one day after it

was filed, Plaintiff had no opportunity to notify the Court of its position that a

request for an extension to a briefing deadline may impede Plaintiff’s ability to

effectively and efficiently conduct expedited discovery. (Pl.’s Br. Supp. Mot.

Reconsid. at 4). 

Case 4:05-cv-00671-JEJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/05 Page 3 of 4
2

 Although Plaintiff asserts that new evidence warrants the Court’s reconsideration, in the

form of Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant is issuing Right to Know Law requests directly

to Plaintiff’s customers “in an attempt to procure documents relating to MRS’ transactions with

taxing entities, which the parties agreed would only be provided to Defendant upon the

conclusion of the depositions of the Defendant’s representatives, ” we do not find that this in any

way warrants the Court’s reconsideration of our May 4, 2005 Order setting deadlines for the

briefing schedule of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Pl.’s Br. Supp. Mot.

Reconsid. at 4). 

4

After a careful review of Plaintiff’s Motion and accompanying submission,

we do not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated any one of the following necessary

to alter or amend our May 4, 2005 Order: (1) an intervening change in the

controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when

the court granted the Motion to Extend Deadline2

; or (3) the need to correct a clear

error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café, 176 F.3d

at 677(citing North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s May 4,

2005 Order is denied.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s May 4, 2005

Order (doc. 34) is DENIED.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00671-JEJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/05 Page 4 of 4