United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Bennett L.
Kight's (“Defendant” or “Kight”)
Motion to Reconsider the Court's October 16, 2017 Order
 (“Motion to Reconsider”).
December 19, 2016, the Government moved to disqualify Barry
J. Armstrong and his law firm, Dentons USA LLP (the
“Firm” or “Defense Counsel”) from
representing Kight in this criminal action. The Government
argued disqualification was warranted on the grounds that
Armstrong previously represented Kight and William C.
Lankford (“Lankford”), a cooperating witness
here, in a state court civil action (the “Civil
Action”) that was substantially related to the charges
brought against Kight in this case. (Motion to Disqualify
Defense Counsel  (“Motion to Disqualify”)).
On February 14, 2017, Defendant filed an Unopposed Request
for Oral Argument on the Government's Motion to
Disqualify Defense Counsel  (“Unopposed Motion for
October 16, 2017, the Court granted the Motion to Disqualify
and denied the Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument  (the
“October 16th Order”). As to the Motion to
Disqualify, the Court held that “the subject matter of
Armstrong's representation of Lankford in the Civil
Action [was] substantially related to the subject matter of
his representation of Kight, ” and therefore “an
actual conflict of interest” existed as to
Armstrong's representation of Kight in this case. (
at 32-33). The Court then rejected Kight's waiver of the
actual conflict because of Lankford's continued refusal
to waive the attorney-client privilege. ( at 34). As
to Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument, the
Court found that oral argument was not necessary because
Defendant did not identify the issues he contended were
raised for the first time in the Government's Reply,
Defendant's claimed “worsening mental health
issues” were the subject of extensive briefing and
communications with the Court after the filing of the motion,
and the “complex facts and issues implicating federal,
state, and constitutional law” were adequately and
accurately addressed by the parties in their briefs and
submissions. ( at n.1; see also  at 1-2).
October 27, 2017, Defendant filed his Motion to Reconsider.
In it, he raises three grounds for reconsideration,
including: (1) the Court was required to hold a hearing prior
to disqualifying Defense Counsel; (2) the evidence in the
record makes clear that Lankford and Kight's interests
are not materially adverse; and (3) given the significant
prejudice that will inure to Defendant if Defense Counsel is
disqualified, and the “speculative nature” of the
potential adversity, the Court should have instead appointed
separate counsel to cross-examine Lankford.
for reconsideration, assuming they are even appropriate in
criminal cases, “‘should be reserved for certain
limited situations, namely the discovery of new evidence, an
intervening development or change in the law, or the need to
correct clear error or prevent a manifest
injustice.'” Brinson v. United States, No.
1:04-cr-0128-01-RWS, 2009 WL 2058168, at *1 (N.D.Ga. July 14,
2009) (quoting Deerskin Trading Post, Inc. v. United
Parcel Serv. of Am. Inc., 972 F.Supp. 655, 674 (N.D.Ga.
1997)). “Given the narrow scope of motions for
reconsideration, they may not be used in a variety of
circumstances.” Brinson, 2009 WL 2058168 at
*1. They may not offer new legal theories or evidence that
could have been presented in a previously filed motion or
response, unless a reason is given for failing to raise the
issue at an earlier stage in the litigation. Id.
They may not be used to “‘present the court with
arguments already heard and dismissed or to repackage
familiar arguments to test whether the court will change its
mind.'” Id. (quoting Bryan v.
Murphy, 246 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1259 (N.D.Ga. 2003).
Finally, a motion for reconsideration “is not an
opportunity for the moving party . . . to instruct the court
on how the court ‘could have done it better' the
first time.” Brinson, 2009 WL 2058168, at *1
(quoting Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb's History,
Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 916 F.Supp. 1557,
1560 (N.D.Ga. 1995) (aff'd 87 F.3d 1242 (11th
Motion for Reconsideration reargues issues previously raised
and decided by this Court, and fails to present any issues
involving the misapplication of or failure to apply relevant
statutes, case law, or rules of procedure. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for
Hearing Prior to Disqualification
first argues that the Court was required to afford Defendant
a hearing prior to disqualifying it. ( at 6-9). Defendant
makes this argument based on three grounds: (1) the
Government needed to confirm, on the record, its intention to
call Lankford as a witness at trial; (2) the Court needed to
consider Defendant's competency, or lack thereof; and (3)
the Court needed to secure, on the record, Defendant's
waiver of any conflict. (Id.).
Government argues, as to the first ground, that
Defendant's argument is “not a specification of
error by the Court, [but rather] Defendant's repackaging
of the argument that Lankford is really a defense
witness.” ( at 2). The Government confirms its
intention to call Lankford as a witness in its case-in-chief,
and notes that “Defendant cites no relevant statutes,
case law[, ] or rules of procedure that the Court misapplied
or failed to apply in disqualifying counsel based ...