RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ARTICULATION

STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge.

Stanley Scheinman seeks reconsideration of my September 21, 2018 orders denying Scheinman's motions for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, Doc. No. 99, in the above-captioned case. He also seeks an articulation of my ruling with respect to the proper standard regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings, see Doc. No. 102, and requests an articulation of the "reference" of my question to defense counsel regarding certain communications and whether those communications carried a signature, see Doc. No. 103. For the reasons that follow, the requests are denied.

Reconsideration will be granted only if the moving party can identify controlling decisions or data that I overlooked and that would reasonably be expected to alter my decision. 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.'" Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Any new evidence must be "truly newly discovered or could not have been found by due diligence." Space Hunters, Inc. v. United States, 500 F. App'x 76, 81 (2d Cir. 2012).

Because Scheinman does not raise new evidence, data, or controlling decisions in his motion, the motion is denied.

Regarding the motions for articulation, the ruling set forth on the record is clear. Accordingly, Scheinman's motion for reconsideration, Doc. No. 101, is DENIED. Scheinman's motions for articulation, Doc. Nos. 102 and 103, are DENIED.

So ordered.