PHILLIPS v. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEWARK, 2:18-cv-12207

Plaintiff Scott Phillips (on his own behalf and as guardian ad litem for B.P. and K.P.) sued the Archdiocese of Newark and related church/school defendants; the Third Circuit ordered a limited fact-finding remand focused on whether the Archdiocese received federal school-lunch funding sufficient to support Title IX jurisdiction.
Plaintiff served subpoenas on ten third-party agencies/charitable institutions seeking records about federal funding; the Archdiocese Defendants moved to quash those subpoenas.
After briefing and two oral arguments, the Magistrate Judge issued an Opinion (May 8, 2023) granting the motion to quash in part and denying it in part, permitting only subpoenas that directly targeted the school-lunch funding issue relevant to the remand.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, styled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); the Court treated the motion under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) because Rule 59(e) governs judgments, not discovery rulings.
The Magistrate Judge denied reconsideration, concluding plaintiff merely reargued previously considered points, failed to identify new facts or controlling legal authority the court overlooked, and therefore did not meet the high standard for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedural vehicle for reconsideration	Rule 59(e) motion is appropriate to alter the court's discovery decision	Rule 59(e) applies to judgments; Local Civ. R. 7.1(i) governs reconsideration of non-judgment orders	Court treated motion under Local Civ. R. 7.1(i) and rejected Rule 59(e) framing
Scope of permissible discovery on remand	May subpoena all records of federal funding from third parties because indirect receipt can create Title IX liability	Discovery should be limited to evidence reasonably related to the school-lunch funding identified in the remand	Court limited discovery to subpoenas targeting the school-lunch funding inquiry and quashed others
Sufficiency of plaintiff’s subpoenas (reach beyond lunches)	Subpoenas were based on federal spending website entries and thus relevant	Subpoenas exceeded the narrow remand scope and sought overbroad information	Court found eight of ten subpoenas outside the remand scope and quashed them
Basis for reconsideration	Court overlooked material facts/controlling law showing broader discovery was warranted	Court had considered plaintiff’s arguments and authority; no new facts/authority presented	Reconsideration denied as plaintiff merely reargued positions already addressed

Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (discusses the proper use of Rule 59(e) and standards for altering judgments)
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2010) (reconsideration is to correct manifest errors or present newly discovered evidence)
Tehan v. Disability Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 111 F. Supp. 2d 542 (D.N.J. 2000) (reconsideration will not be used to reargue disagreeable decisions)
United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339 (D.N.J. 1999) (Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration in the district)
Andreyko v. Sunrise Sr. Living, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 475 (D.N.J. 2014) (denial of reconsideration where movant failed to present new controlling law or facts)