UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X SAMANTHA SIVA KUMARAN, ET AL., : : 19-CV-8345 (MKV) (RWL) Plaintiffs, : : - against - : : ORDER : NORTHLAND ENERGY TRADING, LLC, : ET AL., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------X ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 309) of the Court’s October 7th, 2025 Order at Dkt. 298 is denied. The memorandum is 24 pages in length (not including caption, table of contents, etc.) in violation of SDNY Local Rule 6.3, which limits memoranda on motions for reconsideration to 10 pages. The Court previously has warned Plaintiff about being unnecessarily prolix. Accordingly, the motion shall not be considered. See United States v. Kiwitt, No. 23-CV-6134,

, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2025) (“Motions that do not comply with a court's local rule page limits may be stricken”); Bletas v. Deluca, No. 11-CV-1777,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2011) (noting pro se motion for reconsideration struck for failure to comply with Local Rule 6.3 and Court’s individual practices governing the length of filings). The Court does, however, note the following. First, the October 7th, 2025 Order at Dkt. 298 and the July 2, 2025 bench orders are to be construed compatibly; both are operative. Second, much of Plaintiff’s motion concerns issues that were not ripe at the time of the orders and therefore not resolved. For instance, it is premature to determine whether or not Defendants spoliated evidence; if warranted, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to make a spoliation much at a later time. With respect to ESI (terms, time frame, etc.), the parties are still meeting and conferring about protocol and terms and will later be submitting their joint or competing proposals pursuant to the schedule set forth in the October 7th Order. In short, Plaintiff is not foreclosed from addressing issues in the future that were not expressly resolved by the October 7th Order. As for matters that were resolved by the October 7th Order, Plaintiff has not presented any fact or law overlooked by the Court, any intervening law, or any error. Accordingly, even if considered, the motion is denied on that basis as well. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 309.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERT W.LEHRBURGERit*™” UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: October 23, 2025 New York, New York Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record.