Motion | Filed: September 08, 2026
| Entered: September 08, 2026
Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Birnhak, D.C. et al
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | New York Eastern
Preliminary Injunction
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Declaration Declaration of William Seegull, # 3 Exhibit Agreement 6.7.15, # 4 Exhibit Quantum Leases Produced in Verification - Part 1, # 5 Exhibit Quantum Leased Produced in Verification - Part 2, # 6 Exhibit New Millennium Leases Produced in Verification, # 7 Exhibit Onepoint Leases Produced in Verification, # 8 Exhibit Quantum PT DOS Records, # 9 Exhibit Sample of Quantum Inconsistent Arb Decisions, # 10 Exhibit Quantum Pending Arbs, # 11 Exhibit New Millennium Pending Arbs, # 12 Exhibit Carepoint Pending Arbs, # 13 Exhibit Onepoint Pending Arbs, # 14 Exhibit RCK Pending Arbs, # 15 Exhibit Quantum Pending Suits, # 16 Exhibit Carepoint Pending Suits, # 17 Exhibit Onepoint Pending Suits, # 18 Exhibit RCK Pending Suits, # 19 Exhibit Arbs Filed After 4.20.26) (Tilden, Nathan)
Order | Filed: September 04, 2026
| Entered: September 04, 2026
Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Birnhak, D.C. et al
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
ORDER denying 47 Motion for Reconsideration. "A court must narrowly construe and strictly apply Rule 6.3 so as to avoid duplicative rulings on previously considered issues and to prevent Rule 6.3 from being used to advance different theories not previously argued, or as a substitute for appealing a final judgment." R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). As such, motions for reconsideration "[are] appropriate when the moving party can demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion... and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court." Herschaft v. N.Y.C. Campaign Fin. Bd., 139 F. Supp. 2d 282, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Notably, "a party may not advance new facts, issues, or arguments not previously presented to the Court on a motion for reconsideration." Superior Site Work, Inc. v. NASDI, LLC, No. 14-cv-01061 (ADS) (SIL), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77453, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2017) (internal quotations omitted); see also Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (noting that a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple). Reconsideration is warranted when: (i) the moving party points to an intervening change in controlling law, (ii) newly available evidence is identified, (iii) clear error is established, or (iv) reconsideration is necessary to avoid a manifest injustice. See Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021); Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (same); T.Z. v. City of New York, 634 F. Supp. 2d 263, 268 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (same). It is well-settled that it is within the sound discretion of the district court to decide whether or not to grant a motion for reconsideration. See Gupta v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 52 F. Supp. 3d 677, 679-80 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Rivas v. Melecio, No. 23-CV-05718 (JMA), 2024 WL 1096065, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2024).
Here, Allstate argues that the cases cited in the Court's Order (ECF No. 46) are inapposite. Allstate's hair-splitting distinctions of Gilead, Shokrian, and Lively are not persuasive. For instance, the fact that Gilead involved an ankle monitor does not negate the narrow proposition for which the Order cited it: that "scores" of irrelevant data can outweigh the possibility of obtaining some relevant data. Allstate also challenges the Order for relying on Warnke which has "since been preempted" -- but Allstate does not deny that the proposition for which Warnke was cited, that subpoenas should be evaluated under Rule 26(b)(1), is good law. Allstate is correct that Morocho is distinguishable in that the subpoena there sought "any and all" documents, but the Order cited Morocho only as tangential support; the Order stands without it. Finally, Allstate challenges the Order for not addressing Bank Leumi, but that case was not about discovery at all and therefore has no bearing on the present motion to quash.
Separately, Allstate claims the Order "assumed" the existence of a subpoena not in the record. But the Order did not rely on Defendants' say-so in their opening brief (ECF No. 43). The Order relied on Allstate's concession in its opposition brief (ECF No. 44). Tellingly, even now Allstate does not deny that the subpoena exists. In any event, Defendants have now submitted the correct subpoena addressing Dr. Manadan (ECF No. 48-1), explaining that "counsel inadvertently uploaded the wrong subpoena to ECF" (ECF No. 48 at 4 n.2) -- as the Court surmised.
Accordingly, Allstate's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 47) is denied. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 9/4/2026. (JDF)