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)

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-