
    Colin MORGAN, Castlebay Securities, LTD., Donald Urquhart, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees, v. Raghu GAIND, Dr., Kenneth R. Lagonia, Americredit International Limited, Defendants, Allen Gottlieb, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
    No. 10-2665-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 16, 2012.
    Allen Gottlieb, pro se, Aventura, FL.
    Charles B. Manuel, Jr., Manuel & Associates, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges and JANE A. RESTANI, Judge.
    
    
      
       Judge Jane A. Restani, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Alen Gottlieb, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s May 25, 2010 post-judgment order denying, his motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 30, 2010 order denying his request to quash a subpoena. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We review both the denial of a motion for reconsideration and the denial of a motion to quash a subpoena for abuse of discretion. See In re Subpoena Issued to Dennis Friedman, 350 F.3d 65, 68 (2d Cir.2003) (motion to quash a subpoena); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998) (motion for reconsideration). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider its denial of Gott-lieb’s motion to quash the subpoena filed by the plaintiffs. Gottlieb’s only argument in support of his motion for reconsideration — that he was seeking but had not yet obtained files purportedly establishing that the subpoena should be quashed — did not demonstrate that he was entitled to relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) or otherwise. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 6.3 (providing that a motion for reconsideration or reargument must identify “matters or controlling decisions which [the movant] believes the Court has overlooked”). Moreover, contrary to Gottlieb’s suggestion, the court’s decision did not preclude him from continuing to seek files in the possession of his former counsel. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gottlieb’s underlying motion to quash the subpoena, as Gott-lieb’s motion did not identify any valid basis for granting such relief. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3) (specifying the factors that require or permit a district court to quash a subpoena).

We have considered Gottlieb’s other arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  