United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
B. SMITH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to Extend the Time to
Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 43). On
May 3, 2018, Plaintiff moved for sanctions against Defendant
for its failure to provide an adequate deposition witness, in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. R. 30(b)(6) (Doc. 36). The
motion was referred to the undersigned and on May 21, 2018, I
granted the motion for sanctions as unopposed (Doc. 42). I
declined to reach the merits of the Plaintiff's arguments
and awarded her all relief prayed for in her motion
(Id. at 2).
has requested that the Court reconsider the ruling on
Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and grant it leave to
file a response out of time (Doc. 43). The motion for
reconsideration states that it is opposed. However, Plaintiff
has not filed a response to the motion and the time within
which to do so has expired. For the reasons explained in the
Court's original order granting the motion for sanctions
(Doc. 42), when a party fails to respond, that is an
indication that the motion is unopposed. Foster v. The
Coca-Cola Co., No. 6:14-cv-2102-Orl-40TBS, 2015 WL
3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015); Jones v. Bank of
Am., N.A., 564 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (11th Cir. 2014)1
(citing Kramer v. Gwinnett Cty., Ga., 306
F.Supp.2d 1219, 1221 (N.D.Ga. 2004); Daisy, Inc. v. Polio
Operations, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-564-FtM-38CM, 2015 WL
2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2015) (when defendant did
not respond court could consider motion to compel unopposed);
Brown v. Platinum Wrench Auto Repair, Inc., No.
8:10-cv-2168-T-33TGW, 2012 WL 333808, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb.
1, 2012) (after party failed to respond, court treated motion
for summary judgment as unopposed). The Court proceeds on the
basis that Defendant's motion for reconsideration is
federal rules do not specifically provide for the filing of a
motion for reconsideration but, it is generally understood
that Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), and 60(b) encompass motions for
reconsideration. 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (3d ed. 2017);
Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992).
Rule 60(b), which is relevant here provides that, “[o]n
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... or (6) any
other reason justifying relief.”
is an extraordinary remedy and power to be “used
sparingly.” United States ex rel. Mastej v. Health
Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 869 F.Supp.2d 1336, 1348 (M.D. Fla.
2012). “Appropriate circumstances for reconsideration
include situations in which the Court has obviously
misapprehended a party's position, the facts, or
mistakenly has decided an issue not presented for
determination.” U.S. v. Halifax Hosp. Med.
Ctr., No. 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31TBS, 2013 WL 6284765, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2013). “A motion for reconsideration
must demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior
decision and ‘set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.'” Florida College of Osteopathic
Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d
1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998). Litigants cannot use a motion
for reconsideration to ask a district court to
“relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc.,
555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Michael
Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757,
763 (11th Cir. 2005)).
considering whether to reconsider a prior ruling based on a
party's excusable neglect, the court must consider
“the danger of prejudice … the length of delay
and its potential impact on judicial proceedings …
whether the [movant] acted in good faith” and the
reason for the delay. Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick
Assoc. Ltd. Ptrshp., 507 U.S. 380 (1993).
counsel represents that she failed to file her client's
response to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions because she
“incorrectly tasked the response deadline” (Doc.
43 at 2-3). She also states that she “looked at the
wrong state's federal rules inadvertently and believed
[Defendant] had twenty-one (21) days or until Thursday to
respond to Plaintiff's Motion” (Id. at
As a result of Defense counsel's mistake, her
client's response to the motion for sanctions was filed
five days late (Doc. 44). The Court fails to see how this
short delay has prejudiced Plaintiff. It also finds that this
delay will have a minimal impact on the progress of the case.
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 43) is
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to
VACATE the order at Docket Entry 42.
Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED
NUNC PRO TUNC and Defendant's
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 44), filed on the Docket on May 23, 2018, is
deemed timely filed.
 The Court has no idea what defense
counsel is talking about. There is only one set of Federal
Rules of ...