that applies to a given set of judicial documents, a court must consider “ ‘the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.’ ” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049). Again, the important factor is not whether the court actually relied upon the documents when deciding the documents, but whether the documents were “material” to the court’s decision. See In re Zyprexa, 474 F.Supp.2d at 412 (internal citation omitted). Here, the identification of “material” documents requires specification of the legal arguments that were properly before the Court on Standard’s motion for reconsideration. See Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F.Supp.2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>). Analysis of this kind does not run afoul of
holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for reconsideration that relied on materials available to the movant at the time of the original motion and where movant did not give any explanation as to why she did not rely on those materials in the first instance holding that the movant has the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion holding that a stay of execution is only appropriate where the movant demonstrates substantial grounds upon which relief might be granted holding an internal error that caused the movant to receive the trustees notice of motion twentysix days after the court heard the trustees motion  may have constituted excusable neglect had the movant made a prompt motion for reconsideration and pointing out it is the movants actions after he became aware of the existence of the trustees motion  that reaches the level of willfulness holding that motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the movant demonstrates controlling law or factual matters put before the court on the underlying motion that the movant believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the courts decision