Fiddler's Creek, LLC v. Naples Lending Group LC

Filing 258

ORDER granting in part 256 Defendant Carter's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Briefing ; denying as moot 257 Defendant Carter's Exigent Motion for Either Expedited Briefing or Exigent Telephonic Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of Order Setting Early Deadline for Defendant's Response to Motion to Compel. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/18/2016. (ANW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
IN RE: FIDDLER’S CREEK, LLC
FIDDLER’S CREEK, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-379-FtM-29CM

NAPLES LENDING GROUP LC
and DANIEL CARTER,
Defendants/Third
Party Plaintiff
AUBREY FERRAO, ANTHONY
DINARDO and WILLIAM
REAGAN,
Third Party Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant Carter's Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Briefing (“Motion for Reconsideration,” Doc.
256) and Defendant Carter’s Exigent Motion for Either Expedited Briefing or Exigent
Telephonic Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of Order Setting Early Deadline
for Defendant’s Response to Motion to Compel (“Motion to Expedite,” Doc. 257). For
the reasons set forth below, Defendant Carter’s Motion for Reconsideration is granted
in part and the Motion to Expedite briefing is denied as moot.
On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Carter to
Produce Financial Net Worth Discovery (“Motion to Compel”). Doc. 253. Plaintiff

also moved for expedited briefing in light of the upcoming discovery deadline. Doc.
254. Because the discovery deadline is set for May 31, 2016, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion for expedited briefing without the benefit of a response from
Defendant.

Doc.

255.

Additionally, the Court noted that the parties had been

discussing the underlying issue for months, therefore, Defendant Carter should have
been able to respond within the timeframe provided the Court.

Id. at 1-2.

Defendant Carter now requests reconsideration of that ruling because the Court did
not have all of the facts before the Order was entered.
Defendant Carter states that Plaintiff had full knowledge of the discovery cutoff when it filed its Motion to Compel. Doc. 256 at 2. Moreover, Defendant Carter
asserts that Plaintiff knew at the time it requested expedited briefing Defendant
Carter would not have sufficient time to respond because the parties are in all-day
depositions on this case from Tuesday, May 18, 2016 through Friday, May 20, 2016.

Id. Thus, Defendant Carter only would have one business day to prepare a response
to the Motion to Compel. Id.

Consequently, Defendant Carter requests that the

Court reconsider its ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for expedited briefing.
Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an extraordinary remedy and,
thus, is a power which should be used sparingly. Carter v. Premier Rest. Mgmt.,
2006 WL 2620302 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006) (citing American 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

-2-

error or prevent manifest injustice.” Susman v. Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A., 153
F.R.D. 689, 904 (M.D. Fla. 1994). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new
issues, not merely readdress issues litigated previously.”

Paine Webber Income

Props. Three Ltd. P’ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
The motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate
to the court the reason to reverse its prior decision. Carter, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1
(citing Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072,
1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)).
A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue
– or argue for the first time – an issue the Court has already determined. Carter,
2006 WL 2620302, at * 1. The Court’s opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts,
subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Id. (citing Quaker

Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)).
“The burden is upon the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances
supporting reconsideration.”

Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsboro Cnty., Fla., 149

F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993).

“Unless the movant’s arguments fall into the

limited categories outlined above, a motion to reconsider must be denied.” Carter,
2006 WL 2620302, at *1.
Based on the facts presented by Defendant Carter and because the Court
issued its Order without the benefit of Defendant Carter’s response, the Court finds
that reconsideration is warranted.

The Court, however, is not impressed by the

gamesmanship and lack of professionalism recently demonstrated by the parties. If

-3-

Plaintiff was in fact aware of the pending depositions at the time it requested
expedited briefing, the Court finds this type of behavior contrary to the spirit if not
the rules of how discovery is to be conducted in this district, and it will not be
tolerated. The Middle District Discovery Handbook advises all parties that appear
in this Court, that “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of
cooperation and civility.” Middle District Discovery, A Handbook on Civil Discovery
Practice in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida § I(A)(1).
The parties’ recent filings have failed to demonstrate the appropriate spirit of
cooperation and civility.
Additionally, the parties were aware of the discovery deadline when they
requested that it be extended to May 31, 2016. Doc. 235. Moreover, the parties
were reminded during the hearing on April 27, 2016 of the upcoming discovery
deadline and particularly with respect to promptly filing any motions to compel
financial information. Doc. 251. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to extend
the discovery deadline based on the actions exhibited by the parties, but will extend
Defendant Carter’s time to respond to the motion to compel. Defendant Carter shall
have up to and including Friday, May 27, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel in accordance with the directives set forth in the Order (Doc. 255) expediting
the briefing schedule. The Court will consider the parties’ requests for an extension
after that time.
Also before the Court is Defendant Carter’s Motion to Expedite. Doc. 257. The
Court construed Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration as its response to Plaintiff’s

-4-

motion for an expedited response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel since no response
had been filed at the time of the Court’s ruling. Accordingly, the Court finds that no
additional briefing is needed on this matter.
Finally, the parties’ recent “exigent” motions or requests to expedite the
response deadlines are inappropriate when the parties are aware of upcoming
deadlines. In the future, if the parties do not file motions within sufficient time to
allow the opposing party to respond before a deadline, absent extenuating
circumstances, the Court will not be inclined to entertain such motions. All parties
are fully aware of the deadlines in this case and should conduct themselves
accordingly.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant Carter's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting

Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Briefing (Doc. 256) is GRANTED in part. Defendant
Carter shall have up to and including Friday, May 27, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel in accordance with the directives set forth in the Order (Doc. 255)
expediting the briefing the schedule.
2.

Defendant Carter’s Exigent Motion for Either Expedited Briefing or

Exigent Telephonic Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of Order Setting Early
Deadline for Defendant’s Response to Motion to Compel (Doc. 257) is DENIED as
moot.

-5-

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 18th day of May, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-6-