ORDER

JOHN J. TUCHI, District Judge.

At issue is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 25, "Mot."), which he filed after the Court affirmed the ALJ's decision to deny Plaintiff's claim for benefits. Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A court should deny a motion for reconsideration "absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988).

In its Order affirming the ALJ's decision, the Court explained its finding that the ALJ satisfied her burden of providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to the opinion of examining physician Dr. Colin Joseph. (Doc. 23 at 4-6, "Order".) Plaintiff now argues in part that the Court improperly cited the contradictory testimony of a nonexamining physician as one reason to reject Dr. Joseph's opinion. (Mot. at 2-4.) Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ did not rely on the contradictory testimony as a specific and legitimate reason, and that the Court may not construe it as such now. (Order at 2.) Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration on the basis that the ALJ lacked substantial evidence to support her reasons for discrediting Dr. Joseph's testimony. (Mot. at 3.) The Court addressed these issues in its Order, finding that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to deny Plaintiff's claim.1 (Order at 6.)

Plaintiff raises no newly discovered evidence or changes in the controlling law, and thus styles his Motion for Reconsideration as an argument that the Court committed manifest error. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Having read and interpreted the relevant case law to the best of its ability, this Court previously reached a decision to affirm the ALJ's denial of Plaintiff's benefits. Plaintiff's restyled argument that the ALJ lacked specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject medical opinion evidence provides no grounds upon which to reconsider the Court's decision.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 25).