Hedengren v. Estero Fire Rescue et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying 67 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/29/2015. (LMF) Modified on 6/29/2015 (LMF).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LENA HEDENGREN, an individual
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-333-FtM-38DNF

ESTERO FIRE RESCUE,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
#67) filed on June 25, 2015. At issue is the Court’s Order granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion
to Bifurcate. (See Doc. #62; Doc. #49). Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an
extraordinary remedy, and thus, is a power that should be used sparingly. Carter v.
Premier Rest. Mgmt., No. 2:06-CV-212-FTM-99DNF, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
Sept. 13, 2006) (citing Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d
1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003)). The courts have “delineated three major grounds justifying
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Susman v.
Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 904 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court
accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink
ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

Here there is no intervening change in controlling law, no new evidence, and no
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. As such, the motion is due to be
denied. The Court notes it is not bound by party stipulations; it is unwilling to stall this
case by allowing discovery to be re-opened after a jury verdict; and judicial efficiency
supports the need for all trial portions, both jury and court portions, to be tried
contemporaneously. Thus, the Court stands by its previous order.
As an aside, it is clear Mr. Wilson has misread the Court’s previous order since he
thinks the Court has banned experts at trial. He is fully mistaken. The Court advises Mr.
Wilson to re-read the Court’s order plainly. Whatever risks Mr. Wilson made in discovery
are risks that he must remain accountable for rather than blame the Court. (See generally
Doc. #61, at 2 (Mr. Wilson explaining how he took a risk by foregoing the opportunity to
disclose experts)). He may try his luck again by moving to amend the scheduling
deadlines in this case. Whether the undersigned or magistrate judge assigned to this
case, will grant such a request is unknown at this time.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #67) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 29th day of June, 2015.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2