Deman Data Systems, LLC et al v. Schessel et al

Filing 811

ORDER denying 810 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 4/25/2016. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DEMAN DATA SYSTEMS, LLC,
ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2580-T-24 EAJ

MARC S. SCHESSEL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No.
810) of this Court’s Order denying their Motion to Enforce the Non-Disparagement Provision of
the Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 805). As explained below, the motion for reconsideration
is denied.
There are three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or to
prevent manifest injustice. See Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694
(M.D. Fla. 1994)(citations omitted). The Court notes that reconsideration of a previous order is
an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly. See id. (citations omitted). Defendants
argue that their motion is based on the need to correct clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.
The Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted.
Defendants filed their motion to enforce the non-disparagement provision of the
settlement agreement with respect to Plaintiffs’ counterclaim against Todd Bennett in a lawsuit
filed by Todd Bennett. The Court concluded that the litigation privilege protected Plaintiffs’
statements about Defendants in their court pleadings. Defendants move for reconsideration,

arguing that even though Plaintiffs cannot be held liable for damages for statements made in the
court pleadings, they should still be prevented from making such statements. The Court is not
persuaded by this argument.
Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have been sending disparaging letters to third
parties. As evidence of this conduct, Defendants attach a letter that Plaintiffs’ counsel sent to
FTI Consulting as Exhibit B to their motion for reconsideration. However, the letter does not
contain any disparaging statements. The letter merely requests that FTI Consulting preserve all
documents relating to Plaintiffs’ counterclaim against Todd Bennett, including documents
relating to Primrose. While the letter refers to the counterclaim, the letter itself does not contain
disparaging statements. As such, this letter is not a basis for reconsideration.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. No. 810) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 25th day of April, 2016.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

2