ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Stay Order,1 in which Plaintiff seeks partial reconsideration of this Court's February 15, 2012 order in which it granted a complete stay of this action "until the federal criminal investigation into the events that form the basis of Waste Management's amended complaint [in the instant case] is resolved or until the statute of limitations for any criminal actions arising out of those events have expired, whichever occurs first."2 Defendants River Birch, Inc., HWY-90 LLC, Frederick R. Heebe, and Albert J. Ward (collectively, "Defendants") filed their opposition on March 6, 2012.3 Following leave of Court, Plaintiff filed its reply memorandum in further support of its motion for partial reconsideration on March 14, 2012.4

Having considered the motion, the response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, for the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

I. Background

The Court has previously set forth the factual and procedural background of this case in its Order and Reasons granting Defendants' Motions for a Stay,5 and the Court does not see a need again to set out the relevant factual and procedural background of this case. Instead, the Court refers the parties to its prior order.6

II. Law and Analysis

A. Standard of Review on Motion for Reconsideration7

Although the Fifth Circuit has noted that the Federal Rules "do not recognize a `motion for reconsideration' in haec verba,"8 it has consistently recognized that such a motion may challenge a judgment or order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), 59(e), or 60(b).9 Rules 59 and 60, however, apply only to final judgments.10 When a party seeks to revise an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims among all of the parties, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) controls.11 The Rule states:

Under Rule 54(b), the district court "possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient."13 However, this broad discretion14 must be exercised sparingly in order to forestall the perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting burdens and delays.15 Further, the decision of the district court to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration will only be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.16

The general practice of courts in this district has been to evaluate Rule 54(b) motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the same standards that govern Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment.17 A Rule 59(e) motion "calls into question the correctness of a judgment,"18 and courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant such a motion.19 In exercising this discretion, courts must carefully balance the interests of justice with the need for finality.20 Courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana have generally considered four factors in deciding a motion under the Rule 59(e) standard:

Although Rules 59 and 60 set forth specific time frames during which reconsideration may be sought,22 Rule 54 sets forth no such limitation.23 However, importantly, Rule 54(b) motions, like those under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), are not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments.24 Instead, they "serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."25 "It is well settled that motions for reconsideration should not be used . . . to re-urge matters that have already been advanced by a party."26

Reconsideration, therefore, is not to be lightly granted, as "[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly"27 and the motion must "clearly establish" that reconsideration is warranted.28 When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.29

B. Analysis

In its Motion for Partial Reconsideration, Plaintiff requests the Court to "reconsider the scope of that Stay Order so as to permit Waste Management to obtain a limited amount of document discovery . . . ."30 Specifically, Plaintiff argues that this Court should require production of a copy of a set of documents already seized by the FBI as part of the ongoing criminal investigation.31 Plaintiff argues that doing so will "raise no burden or relevance issues; will implicate no testimonial privileges, and [] will serve only to further the efficient disposition of this litigation upon its resumption."32

Defendants respond that Plaintiff previously argued for "a staged discovery process that included, among other things, the production of documents seized by the FBI . . ." and that the Court previously rejected Plaintiff's request for staged discovery by granting a complete stay.33 Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration does nothing more than rehash arguments previously presented.34 This Court is inclined to agree with Defendants that Plaintiff does nothing more than restate arguments previously made, and the Court notes that Plaintiff specifically proposed staged discovery to begin with "only document production and other written discovery . . .", specifically to include "copies of any documents that have already been seized by the Government during its raid of River Birch's offices."35

In a reply to Defendants' opposition, Plaintiff attempts to characterize the Court's prior order as not encompassing its current request to obtain documents already seized by the FBI as part of the ongoing criminal investigation by stating "neither the Court nor the Defendants addressed the production of the `Seized Documents' as requiring a Stay."36 Although the Court did not focus its decision on specific discovery requests Plaintiff might have, clearly the Court considered the effect of any discovery when it rejected Plaintiff's argument regarding "staged discovery."

Plaintiff provides nothing to demonstrate that there have been any alleged errors that rise to the level of manifest error required for a motion to reconsider; Plaintiff makes no arguments regarding newly discovery or previously unavailable evidence; Plaintiff makes no argument that manifest injustice will result if the Court does not reconsider its prior ruling; and Plaintiff makes no argument that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Instead, Plaintiff only expounds upon arguments presented in its original opposition to the motions for a stay.

Because Plaintiff does nothing more than "re-urge matters that have already been advanced by a party,"37 reconsideration is inappropriate. Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy" that must be used sparingly and with full consideration of the importance of finality of judgments. Here, Plaintiff has presented no independent reason to justify reconsideration, and simply allowing a party to reassert the same arguments does nothing but waste judicial time and resources while calling into question the finality of judgments.

III. Conclusion

Mere disagreement with a prior ruling, as asserted here, does not support a motion for reconsideration, and the Court, therefore, finds reconsideration unwarranted here. For the reasons set forth above, as well as the reasons given in the original Order and Reasons granting a complete stay of these proceedings,38

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Stay Order39 is DENIED.