Familiarity with the undersigned’s October 14 Order is assumed. Mitre’s letter application, seeking reconsideration of one aspect of the October 14 Order, is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).[2] By its terms, however, Rule 60(b)(6) is limited to relief from a “final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Because the undersigned’s October 14 Order was an interlocutory discovery order, and not a final order, “a motion under Rule 60(b)(6) is inappropriate.” Manko v. Deutsche Bank, No. 02 Civ. 10180 (TPG), 2006 WL 1443200, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2006); see also Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, No. 02 Civ. 5068 (JFK), 2009 WL 1739893, at *2, n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2009) (“Since the discovery orders at issue here are interlocutory orders, Rule 60(b) has no application.”).

Nevertheless, “[a]ll interlocutory orders remain subject to modification or adjustment prior to the entry of a final judgment adjudicating the claims to which they pertain.” Grace v. Rosenstock, 228 F.3d 40, 51 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 99 F.3d 538, 541 (2d Cir. 1996) (explaining that “[b]y its own terms, Rule 60(b) applies only to judgments that are final” but noting that “a district court is vested with the power to revisit its decisions before the entry of final judgment and is free from the constraints of Rule 60 in so doing”). Given that Mitre’s letter application reflects an unmistakable request for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, I shall construe Mitre’s application as a timely request for reconsideration made pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, rather than pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).

“The standard for a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 is strict. A court will deny reconsideration unless the moving party can establish: (1) that the court overlooked controlling decisions or data; (2) that there has been a change in controlling law; (3) that new evidence has become available; or (4) that reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 02 Civ. 7618 (KMW) (HBP), 2009 WL 3817590, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2009) (citing Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)); see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., No. 01 Civ. 10715 (HBP), 2009 WL 2876264, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2009) (same). Motions for reconsideration are “narrowly construed and strictly applied to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court.” Anglo Am. Ins. Group, P.L.C. v. Calfed Inc., 940 F. Supp. 554, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). However, motions for reconsideration “ ‘are granted when new facts come to light or when it appears that controlling precedents were overlooked.’ ” AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 07 Civ. 7052 (SHS) (HBP), 2009 WL 1953039, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009) (quoting Weissman v. Fruchtman, 658 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)).

*2 Mitre concedes that it is not seeking reconsideration as to whether HBO is entitled to redact documents on the grounds of irrelevance. That issue was decided by Judge Pitman and affirmed by Judge Daniels and, therefore, is now “settled.”[3] Rather, Mitre seeks reconsideration as to whether in camera review of certain documents is warranted to evaluate whether HBO has improperly redacted relevant, rather than irrelevant, information. Contrary to HBO’s averments, neither Judge Pitman nor Judge Daniels ruled on the specific issue of whether in camera review is warranted. Both parties agree that Mitre’s request for in camera review of certain notebooks was first raised, or rather clarified, in its May 5, 2010 letter.[4] Judge Pitman’s October 16, 2009 order, affirmed by Judge Daniels on November 23, 2009, could not have ruled on that issue.

In denying Mitre’s request for in camera review of certain notebooks, the undersigned relied mainly on HBO’s counsel’s ethical obligations and repeated representations that HBO had not redacted relevant information from the challenged documents. See HBO’s Privilege Log, dated February 22, 2010, Item Nos. 254-255 (representing that HBO redacted “[n]on-relevant, personal communication that does not relate or refer to the Segment”); id. Item Nos. 253, 256 (representing that HBO redacted “[n]on-relevant communications regarding newsgathering materials that do not relate or refer to the Segment ... ”).[5] See also October 14 Order at 34 (noting HBO’s representation that it has not redacted information relevant to the Segment at issue); id. (“Given the prior rulings from this Court, affirmed by Judge Daniels, permitting HBO to redact irrelevant information, coupled with HBO’s representation that it has not redacted information relevant to the Segment at issue, the undersigned will not allow Mitre yet another bite at rearguing this same issue.”) (emphases added).

Judge Francis explained the analysis employed when faced with a similar request:

*3 Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 05 Civ. 2936, 2006 WL 163143 (JCF), at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2006).

As outlined above, without more, mere speculation and conjecture as to whether a party has improperly redacted relevant information is insufficient to warrant in camera review of challenged documents. Although Mitre’s request for reconsideration is based largely upon the same arguments it made in support of its initial motion, Mitre also cites new evidence, namely a recently produced redacted e-mail (HBO009440-1), as further support for its belief that HBO is redacting relevant material. One of “[t]he major grounds justifying reconsideration” is “the availability of new evidence.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)(quoting 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790); see also Allstate Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2876264, at *4 (quoting same).

The context provided by the unredacted portions of this recently produced e-mail provides a reasonable basis to believe that HBO may be redacting at least potentially relevant information. It is difficult to see how this e-mail can be reviewed in context when redacted portions clearly modify and inform unredacted relevant language. For example, redacted language is immediately followed by a sentence reading: “That is why we focused on soccer ball stitching as opposed to any other industry that uses child labour.” HBO009440. The transitional phrase, “[t]hat is why,” makes plain that the preceding redacted language informs and provides the context needed in order for the reader to understand the unredacted language that follows. The relevant portions of a document should be “disclosed together with such contextual information as necessary for the sections produced to be comprehensible.” Concepcion v. City of New York, No. 05 Civ. 8501 (JCF), 2006 WL 2254987, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2006); see also In re State Street Bank and Trust Co. Fixed Income Funds Inv. Litig., No. 08 md 1945 (DFE), 2009 WL 1026013, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2009) (noting that similar redactions may “breed suspicions, and they may deprive the reader of context”). This e-mail calls into question HBO’s view of context that is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”[6]

Furthermore, HBO’s own arguments in opposition to Mitre’s request for reconsideration provide additional reasons to believe that HBO may be redacting potentially relevant information. First, HBO notes that the title page of only one out of the three notebooks that Mitre challenges, see HBO008738 - HBO008852, reflects both “China ’08, and Meerut & Jalandhur ’08 Trips.” HBO contends that the title page of that notebook makes clear the reason for HBO’s redactions. See Bolger Nov. 9 Letter at 2, n. 2 (arguing that “[o]n its face, then, the notebook contains information about a trip unrelated to the Segment”). But, as Mitre points out, the title pages of the two other notebooks at issue reflect trips to India only. See HBO008488-HBO008607 (“India Soccer: July – Sept 2008”); HBO008608-HBO008737 (“India Soccer: Meerut Trip ’07, Oct. – Dec. ‘07”). And, although the title pages of the these notebooks reflect “India Soccer” trips only, redactions are found sporadically throughout both notebooks and these redactions are often flanked by or found on the same page as unredacted information. Even the notebook reflecting trips to China and India is not segregated into discrete sections as redactions are again found on the same pages as or bookended by unredacted information. Such redactions are seemingly at odds with how a notebook reflecting separate subject matter would be redacted.

Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, Civ. No. S-09-0760, 2010 WL 455476, *2 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010) (holding that if “a document is an integral document which is not separated by express designations the entire document must be produced”).

Second, HBO’s opposition addresses directly only one of the six documents Mitre challenges. Aside from its misplaced procedural arguments, HBO fails to offer any basis to allay Mitre’s suspicions as to the redactions found in the other five documents. When HBO’s rather guarded responses are viewed along with its recently produced redacted e-mail, Mitre has now demonstrated a reasonable basis to support in camera review to evaluate potential relevance.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that in light of the new evidence provided by Mitre in support of its request for reconsideration, it is in the interests of justice to revisit and modify the October 14 Order to ORDER that on or before December 1, 2010 HBO shall provide unredacted copies of the following documents to the undersigned for in camera review in order to evaluate potential relevance: (1) HBO008488-HBO008607; (2) HBO008608-HBO008737; (3) HBO008738-HBO008852; (4) HBO008853-HBO008880; (5) HBO008897-HBO008923; and (6) HBO009440-HBO009441. To assist in the review, HBO shall denote on the unredacted copies provided to the undersigned what information it has redacted.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Mitre's request for reconsideration is GRANTED and upon reconsideration, Mitre's request for in camera review ofthe following documents is GRANTED: (I) HB0008488-HB0008607; (2) HB0008608-HB0008737; (3) HB0008738-HB0008852; (4) HB0008853-HB0008880; (5) HB0008897-HB0008923; and (6) HB0009440-HB0009441 .

SO ORDERED

Devin F. Ryan Special Master

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

425 Lexington Ave.

New York, New York I0017-3954

(212) 455-2000

dryan@stblaw.com

See Letter from Sam Rikkers, Esq., Counsel for Mitre, dated Oct. 26, 2010 (“Rikkers’ Oct. 26 Letter”), at 1-3; see also Reply Letter from Sam Rikkers, Esq., Counsel for Mitre, dated Nov.16, 2010 (“Rikkers’ Nov. 16 Letter”), at 1-3.

See Rikkers’ Oct. 26 Letter at 1; Rikkers’ Nov. 16 Letter at 1. HBO’s letter in opposition to Mitre’s request for reconsideration addresses the standard for Rule 60(b)(6) only. Letter from Katherine Bolger, Esq., Counsel for HBO, dated Nov. 9, 2010 (“Bolger Nov. 9 Letter”), at 1-2.

Rikkers’ Nov. 16 Letter at 1 (“Mitre is not attempting to relitigate whether HBO is entitled to redact documents on relevance grounds. Judge Pitman’s October 16, 2009 order, affirmed by Judge Daniels on November 23, 2009, settled this issue.”) (emphasis added).

See Rikkers’ Oct. 26 Letter at 1-2 (“Mitre’s May 5 letter requested the Court’s or the special master’s in camera review of these five notebooks.”); Bolger Nov. 9 Letter at 2 (quoting the same). See also Letter from Ankur Kapoor, Esq., dated May 5, 2010, at 1-2 (requesting either the Court’s or the special master’s review of certain “notebooks in camera to determine whether and to what extent HBO has improperly redacted relevant information”).

See Letter from Katherine M. Bolger, Esq., dated Apr. 30, 2010, at 3, n.2 (citing HBO’s February 22 privilege log and representing that HBO “has not withheld any evidence related to this lawsuit” and that the information HBO redacted “does not relate or refer to the Segment”).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”).