Verrier v. Perrino et al

Filing 146

ORDER denying 144 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order (Doc. 143 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 10/30/2017. (HJ)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JOSEPH M. VERRIER, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:14-cv-744-FtM-29CM PETER PERRINO and DIANE LAPAUL, Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 144) filed on October 16, 2017, construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order (Doc. 143). Plaintiff seeks to supplement the information and documents missing from his previous motions to compel, which the Court denied for the reasons enumerated in the Order (Doc. 143). Doc. 144. Based on his newly supplemented information, Plaintiff seeks the Court to reconsider its previous Order. Defendants oppose the requested relief. Id. Doc. 145. “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., 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)). “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), and 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)). Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration because Plaintiff does not set forth any proper grounds for the Court’s reconsideration of the Order (Doc. 143). Doc. 144; see id. The Court further reminds Plaintiff that the discovery deadline in this case had expired on September 18, 2017. Doc. 56 at 1. The Case Management and Scheduling Order clearly states, “[t]he Court may deny as untimely all motions to compel filed after the discovery deadline.” Id. at 2. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration to the extent that it seeks to compel Defendants to produce discovery because this motion is untimely. Doc. 144; see id. ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 144), construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order (Doc. 143), is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 30th day of October, 2017. Copies: Counsel of record -2- Unrepresented parties -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?