United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
B. SMITH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
case comes before the Court without a hearing on
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of
its Prior Motion to Extend Scheduling Deadlines and Second
Motion for Extension of Certain Deadlines (Doc. 43).
Plaintiff opposes the motion (Doc. 56).
James Alton Griffin alleges that he was seriously injured
when the Perfect Flame® gas grill he was using exploded
(Doc. 2). He brings this lawsuit against Defendants
Lowe's Companies, Inc., LG Sourcing, Inc., and Nexgrill
Industries, Inc. for their roles in designing, manufacturing,
supplying, marketing and selling the grill in question
(Id.). Defendants deny liability (Docs. 21-23).
Court entered its standard Related Case Order and Track Two
Notice on March 20, 2018 which required counsel to meet,
confer, and file a case management report containing
suggested dates for the completion of material events (Doc.
10). The parties complied and proposed, inter alia,
the following deadlines:
Disclosure of Expert Reports by Plaintiff March 6, 2019
Disclosure of Expert Reports by Defendant April 5, 2019
Discovery Deadline May 6, 2019
Dispositive Motions June 4, 2019
Daubert Motions July 1, 2019
Trial during the term beginning November 4, 2019
(Doc. 25 at 1-2). Whether the parties realized it at the
time, this is an aggressive schedule which does not leave
room for unexpected events which require a change in plans.
Still, this is what the parties agreed on and proposed and
what the Court incorporated into its Case Management and
Scheduling Order (Doc. 26 at 1-2).
made his expert disclosures on March 6, 2019 (Doc. 41-1), and
on April 11, 2019, defense counsel requested dates to depose
the experts (Doc. 40 at 3). Plaintiff's lawyer advised
that the experts were not available for deposition before the
discovery deadline, but that he was willing to seek a joint
extension so that both parties could take additional
depositions (Doc. 40-4 at 6). Defendants countered that the
parties should seek a 90 extension of all deadlines including
the trial date (Id., at 5). The parties did not
reach agreement, and Defendants filed their motion to extend
the scheduling deadlines and to continue the
trial (Doc. 40). Plaintiff opposed the motion,
arguing that no extension should be granted or,
alternatively, that only the discovery deadline should be
extended, and for no more than 30 days, for the sole purpose
of allowing Defendants to depose Plaintiff's experts
(Doc. 41 at 5). The Court denied the motion because
Defendants had not shown diligence in pursuing discovery, and
because no manifest injustice would result if Defendants had
to cross-examine Plaintiff's experts at trial without the
benefit of depositions (Doc. 42 at 3). Defendants seek
reconsideration of this Order, and that the Court extend the
discovery deadline and the deadline for filing
Daubert motions (Doc. 56).
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) encompasses 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). Reconsideration
of a court's order is an extraordinary remedy and a 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. Medical
Center, No. 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31TBS, 2013 WL 6284765, at
*1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2013). Reconsideration is also
warranted based upon: “(1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and
(3) the need to correct clear error or manifest
injustice.” McGuire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 497
F.Supp.2d 1356, 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2007).
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). Parties
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. ...