Parekh v. CBS Corporation et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 12/4/2018. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
NIKLESH PAREKH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:18-cv-466-Orl-40TBS

CBS CORPORATION and BRIAN
CONYBEARE,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration Attorney’s Fees and New Evidence of Agreement that Defendants Will
Re-Word, Re-Organize Interrogatories and Request for Production (Doc. 77).
The 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).
“A 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. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)).
The party moving for reconsideration must present “facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” McGuire, 497 F. Supp.
2d at 1358 (internal quotations omitted). “This ordinarily requires a showing of clear and
obvious error where the interests of justice demand correction.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted). “A party who fails to present its strongest case in the first instance generally has
no right to raise new theories or arguments in a motion for reconsideration.” Id. (internal
quotations omitted). “To avoid repetitive arguments on issues already considered fully by
the court, rules governing reargument are narrowly construed and strictly applied.”
Capitol Body Shop, Case No. 6:14-cv-6000-Orl-31TBS, Doc. 129 at 3 (citing St. Paul Fire
& Marine Ins. Co. v. Heath Fielding Ins. Broking Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 198, 201-02 (S.D.N.Y.
1996)).
Plaintiff alleges that during a lengthy meet-and-confer with counsel for Defendants
Plaintiff agreed to provide better answers to certain interrogatories based upon

-2-

Defendants’ agreement to reword those interrogatories (Doc. 77 at 11). Plaintiff says that
instead of rewording the interrogatories, Defendants sent him a letter telling him which
interrogatories required better answers (Id.). Plaintiff then outlines the demands on his
time and explains he is doing the best he can under the circumstances (Id., at 12). Next,
Plaintiff provides a summary of Florida law on defamation including defamation per se
and the recovery of punitive damages (Id., at 13-14). Lastly, he returns to his contention
that Defendants were supposed to reword their interrogatories and that Defendants are
taking advantage of him (Id., 15-16). Attached to Plaintiff’s motion are copies of emails
which do not support his motion for reconsideration.
The Court is not persuaded that there has been any change in the law, discovery
of new evidence that was not previously available, or need to correct clear or manifest
error. Instead, the motion for reconsideration attempts to relitigate the motion to compel
that was decided against Plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 4, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Plaintiff
Counsel of Record

-3-