*1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion [Dkt. No. 221] of Defendant Prakruti Products Pvt. Ltd. (“Prakruti”) seeking reconsideration of the Court's December 17, 2018 Order [Dkt. No. 220]. Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation (“Sabinsa”) opposes the Motion on the grounds that Prakruti has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that reconsideration is appropriate. The Court has considered this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and, for the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

I. Background

On this Motion for reconsideration, only a brief recitation of the relevant facts is necessary; additional facts can be found in the Court's December 17, 2018 Order. The Order granted in part and denied in part Sabinsa's motion [Dkt. No. 141] for sanctions for the spoliation of evidence and Sabinsa's motion [Dkt. Nos. 161 and 182] for sanctions and a forensic audit.[1] Order [Dkt. No. 220] at 46.

A. Facts Concerning the Motion for Sanctions

The Court found that Prakruti has “possession, custody, and/or control ... over Prakruti Food's documents” and ordered Prakruti to produce all responsive documents from Prakruti Foods. April 19, 2018 Order [Dkt. No. 155], at 1-2 (emphasis added). The Court further emphasized that failure to obey the order could result in sanctions. Id. at 2. Prakruti did not seek reconsideration of this order and did not appeal the order.

In response to Sabinsa's subsequent requests to Prakruti for production of Prakruti Foods documents, Prakruti adopted the same position it asserted prior to the Court's ruling, namely that Prakruti had no control over Prakruti Foods and could not provide any documents. Sabinsa's Amended Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Dkt. No. 210], at 37, ¶131. Prakruti therefore failed to adhere to the Court's Order by failing to produce all responsive documents. Although Prakruti eventually produced some Prakruti Foods documents, Sabinsa claimed that production was incomplete—specifically demonstrating the point through an email obtained through third-party discovery. December 17, 2018 Order [Dkt. No. 220], at 19-20.

The record therefore demonstrates that Prakruti withheld discovery in contravention of the Court's Order, thereby justifying the Court's imposition of sanctions and a forensic audit. In reaching this holding, the Court considered the entire record presented, which included Prakruti's Amended Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Dkt. No. 214] as well as Prakruti's Brief in Opposition to Sabinsa's Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. No. 176]. See December 17, 2018 Order [Dkt. No. 220], at 37-44.

B. Facts Concerning the Spoliation Motion

Sabinsa commenced this action in 2014, claiming Prakruti manufactured and sold Curcuma longa (Turmeric) products (“products”) that infringed upon Sabinsa's patent. The parties eventually reached a settlement in 2015, and, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), Prakruti agreed to exclusively sell its products to Sabinsa until the expiration of Sabinsa's patent.[2] The case was subsequently reopened in 2017 for the limited purpose of (1) obtaining discovery concerning the products allegedly sold by Prakruti to third parties and (2) determining whether those products constituted “Accused Product” under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the production of samples of Prakruti-manufactured products for independent testing was imperative to demonstrate whether or not Prakruti breached the Settlement Agreement.

*2 The record unambiguously shows that Prakruti possessed the following product samples: PP/CUR/1510002, PP/CUR/1510005, and PP/CUR/1601001 (“the Batzer samples”); PP/ORG/CUR/1601001, PP/ORG/CUR/1604001, and PP/CUR/1605004 (“the Eurofins samples”); PP/ORG/CUR/1507001, PP/ORG/CUR/1511001, PP/CUR/1511003, PP/ORG/CUR/1604001, and PP/CUR/1605004 (“the disclosed samples”); and PP/ORG/CUR/1607001 (“the single withheld sample”). Prakruti sent the Eurofins samples and the Batzer samples to its then current attorney Brent Batzer (“Batzer”), an attorney at Amin Talati & Upadhye LLP (“Amin Talati”). Batzer sent the Eurofins samples to a testing business called Eurofins, and he retained the Batzer samples in his office. From that point onward, the following chronology is established:[3]

As stated in the Court's December 17, 2018 Order, the record clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that Prakruti made multiple misrepresentations to Sabinsa and this Court about product samples. Moreover, Prakruti withheld the actual samples as well as information about the samples from Sabinsa. Specifically, Prakruti withheld the Batzer samples until after the samples expired and the Eurofins samples were never produced.

The Court ultimately found that spoliation was established and that sanctions were warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the record under the Third Circuit's spoliation test as articulated in Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 68, 73 (3d Cir. 2012). The Court determined that bad faith, as required under Bull, was established in multiple instances, specifically citing to Prakruti's numerous misrepresentations concerning the status of samples to the Court, actual withholding of samples, and the actual withholding of samples until their expiration and/or destruction. December 17, 2018 Order [Dkt. No. 220], 21-33.

Following the Court's decision, Prakruti timely filed the instant motion for reconsideration.

II. Analysis

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1 which permits a party to seek reconsideration of matters upon which it believes the court overlooked. L. Civ. R. 7.1(i); Prall v. Bocchini, No. 10-1228, 2012 WL 5465161, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2012). Importantly, the standard for reargument is high and reconsideration is to be granted only sparingly. Id. (citing United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994). The movant has the burden of demonstrating either: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration only where its prior decision has overlooked a factual or legal issue that may alter the disposition of the matter. Prall, 2012 WL 5465161, at *2 (citing United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999)); see also Bowers v. Nat'l. Collegiate Athletics Ass'n., 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001) (“The word ‘overlooked’ is the operative term in the Rule”). Additionally, a motion for reconsideration may address only facts or issues of law which were presented to, but not considered by, the court in the course of making the decision at issue. Prall, 2012 WL 5465161, at *3. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity “to relitigate old matters” or raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the court's ruling on the initial motion. Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, 977 F. Supp. 2d 414, 438 (D.N.J. 2013).

*5 In this case, Prakruti raises five overarching arguments to support its motion for reconsideration. First, Prakruti argues that the Court overlooked that the single withheld sample was not responsive and was therefore irrelevant to the case. Second, Prakruti argues that the Court overlooked the fact that the misrepresentations, as they relate to the Batzer samples, were inadvertent. Third, Prakruti argues that “newly received evidence” establishes that Prakruti attempted to preserve the Eurofins samples from destruction. Fourth, Prakruti argues that the Court overlooked that the misrepresentations, as they relate to the Eurofins samples, were inadvertent. And, finally, Prakruti argues that the Court overlooked that Sabinsa failed to establish that “any responsive document from Prakruti Foods has not been produced.”

In response to the Motion, Sabinsa emphasizes that Prakruti's arguments do not meet the Third Circuit's standard for reconsideration.[5] Plainly stated, Sabinsa argues that Prakruti has not set forth an intervening change of law, presented new evidence that was unavailable when Prakruti opposed the sanctions and spoliation motions, nor does Prakruti argue it will suffer a manifest injustice. The Court agrees. None of Prakruti's arguments constitute an adequate basis for the Court to reconsider its December 17, 2018 Order.

As an initial matter, many of Prakruti's present arguments are verbatim recitations of arguments Prakruti previously asserted and the Court thoroughly considered before issuing the December 17, 2018 Order. These arguments are, therefore, not a basis for reconsideration. Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 977 F. Supp. 2d 414, 438 (D.N.J. 2013) (“The reconsideration vehicle may not be used by parties to ‘restate arguments that the court has already considered.’ ”) (citation omitted).

For example, in arguing that “the Court overlooked that Sabinsa failed to establish that any responsive document from Prakruti Foods has not been produced,” Prakruti is asserting the exact same argument to Prakruti's prior position—even the language is identical.[6] Similarly lacking in merit is Prakruti's argument that the Court overlooked that the single withheld sample was not responsive and irrelevant,[7] Prakruti's Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 221-1], at 3, as Prakruti previously raised this argument.[8] Transcript of Oral Argument held on September 26, 2018 [Dkt. No. 217], at 62:21 to 63:11 and 78:25 to 79:7; see also Prakruti's Brief in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions based upon Spoliation [Dkt. No. 145], at 5-6.

*6 Prakruti next argues that the Court overlooked that the misrepresentations, concerning the Batzer samples and the Eurofins samples, were inadvertent. Prakruti incredulously claims the Court did not consider Prakruti's declarations and/or arguments on these issues, and that the Court erred by ruling that Prakruti's representations were knowingly false. In support of these fantastical claims, Prakruti argues that it was not bound by the promises and representations of its prior counsel, and because the faulty memories of its attorneys and its employee could not recall the existence of samples, Prakruti claims the inaccuracies in Prakruti's sworn statements and representations were merely inadvertent.

Prakruti further argues that its conduct was at worst negligent and that the Court committed clear error in finding Prakruti's conduct was intentional. And finally, Prakruti claims the Court overlooked the facts surrounding Prakruti's promises regarding ESI discovery and that the Court applied the wrong legal standard for spoliation.

Contrary to Prakruti's bald assertions regarding the Batzer samples, the Eurofins samples, and the single withheld sample, the Court unequivocally considered Prakruti's submissions and arguments throughout the voluminous record. A cursory review of the Court's September 26, 2018 hearing and the Court's December 17, 2018 Order demonstrates numerous citations to the various submissions and arguments that Prakruti claims were overlooked. Moreover, the Court allowed Prakruti numerous opportunities in oral argument, briefing, certified statements, and multiple submissions of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to address Sabinsa's arguments and to clarify the record and guiding law. However, the record demonstrates that Prakruti made specific representations to this Court and to Sabinsa about the production, identity, withholding, destruction, expiration, and general existence of samples. The Court considered these representations and Prakruti's actions (and lack thereof). Ultimately, the Court determined that the record presented multiple bases establishing the requisite finding of bad faith under the Bull spoliation analysis—the correct standard under the Third Circuit's spoliation test. Therefore, none of Prakruti's arguments, and overall displeasure with the Court's ruling, articulate a cognizable reason under the reconsideration standard. Tellingly, Prakruti largely fails to identify which, if any, of the three bases for reconsideration the Motion for Reconsideration's arguments address. If anything, Prakruti's arguments read more like an appeal of the Court's Order, which is not a proper basis for reconsideration.

Lastly, Prakruti argues that “evidence newly received by current counsel” establishes that Prakruti attempted to preserve the Eurofins samples. Prakruti's Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 221-1], at 10. Specifically, Prakruti presents a form from Eurofins (the “Eurofins form”) that was executed on November 21, 2016, by Prakruti's prior counsel at Amin Talati. Id. The Eurofins form includes a box title: “Sample Disposal” and there is an “X” next to the phrase “Return (shipping fees may apply).” Eurofins Form [Dkt. No. 221-3], at 3. Davis states that he received the Eurofins form from Batzer[9] on December 27, 2018, along with a letter requesting that Davis submit the letter and form to the Court. Prakruti's Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 221-1], at 10. Prakruti avers that the Eurofins form is new evidence that “invalidates the essential building block of the Court's inference that Prakruti intended to destroy the [Eurofins] samples.” Id. at 11.

*7 The Court is unpersuaded by Prakruti's argument. The Eurofins form is not new evidence under the Third Circuit standard for reconsideration. The sole reason Prakruti claims the Eurofins form as “new” is because Davis claims he had never seen the form prior to December 27, 2018. Prakruti admits that its prior counsel had the Eurofins form since at least November 21, 2016. And, as Sabinsa rightfully points out, Prakruti offers no explanation for “(1) why the form was unavailable before the Court issued its Order and could not have been presented earlier, (2) why Prakruti did not conduct a reasonable search for the form while facing nearly constant signs that it should do so, or (3) why Davis did not ask Batzer about other Eurofins materials (such as the form) when Prakruti filed declarations stating that the Eurofins samples were destroyed.” Sabinsa's Brief in Opposition to Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 224], at 10. Prakruti, therefore, possessed the Eurofins form, just as it knew of and possessed the Batzer samples. The Eurofins form was “readily known and available to be presented to the Court before the Order ... was decided,” and does not meet the “new evidence” standard to qualify for reconsideration. Jackson Hewitt, Inc. v. SEMO Tax Servs., Inc., No. 11-cv-00662, 2012 WL 3990327, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2012).

The Court notes that Prakruti could have, and should have, presented the Eurofins form to the Court for consideration when the Court was considering the motions for sanctions and spoliation. The Court did not “overlook” the Eurofins form. And, even still, the Eurofins form does not change the result of this case. The Court found multiple bases to establish bad faith, and nothing about this so called “new evidence” can remedy the shortcomings of Prakruti's many misrepresentations and conduct in this case. Therefore, the Eurofins form is not new evidence, nor does it establish a need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice.

Consequently, IT IS on this the 2nd day of August, 2019, hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 221] is DENIED. The Court's December 17, 2018 Order, granting in part and denying in part Sabinsa's motion [Dkt. No. 141] for sanctions for the spoliation of evidence and motions [Dkt. Nos. 161 and 182] for sanctions and a forensic audit, shall stand.