Gil v. Leon et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff must appear for his deposition by December 9, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 11/8/2016. (JR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
EDWARD J. GIL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:15-cv-1003-T-36JSS

DAVID LEON, DAVID LEON, RANDY
KELLY, RANDY KELLY, CHRIS
NOCCO, COUNTY OF PASCO and
PASCO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Reconsideration.
(Dkt. 62.) Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its order dated October 6, 2016, which extended
the discovery deadline for the sole purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s deposition and compelled
Plaintiff to appear for his deposition by October 28, 2016. (Dkt. 56.) Shortly thereafter, the
discovery deadline was extended until January 6, 2017, and Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Reconsideration to allow for his deposition to be conducted by January 6, 2017. While the motion
was pending, however, Plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition on October 28, 2016, as ordered
by the Court. Additionally, as indicated by Defendants, Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to appear
for his deposition after multiple attempts by Defendants to schedule the deposition and
accommodate Plaintiff’s schedule. (Dkt. 66.)
Although the Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s reasons for requesting reconsideration, absent
an order granting reconsideration, Plaintiff was required to comply with the Court’s prior order.
Cf. Middle District Discovery (2015) at § VII.B; Hepperle v. Johnston, 590 F.2d 609, 613 (5th
Cir. 1979) (finding that the existence of a pending motion does not relieve a party of his or her

duty to comply with the requirements of discovery); see Creative Solutions Grp., Inc. v. Pentzer
Corp., 199 F.R.D. 443, 444 (D. Mass. 2001) (finding that the obligation to comply with an order
compelling discovery is not excused by the filing of a motion for reconsideration). As such,
Plaintiff was required to appear for his deposition, notwithstanding his outstanding motion for
reconsideration.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for

Reconsideration (Dkt. 62) is DENIED. Plaintiff must appear for his deposition by December 9,
2016. Plaintiff’s continued failure to appear at his deposition and failure to comply with the
Court’s orders will result in sanctions.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 8, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-2-