Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 9.669 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Polk County, Florida et al

Filing 38

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Limited Expedited Discovery (Doc. # 35 ) is GRANTED in part to the extent described below. Plaintiff is relieved of its obligation to produce Marty Bass for deposition by April 29, 2016. Plaintiff may assert legally cognizable privileges with respect to the expedited discovery if those privileges are documented in a privilege log. Defendant shall keep any documents produced pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. # 31 ) confidenti al as against any individual or entity that is not a defendant to the Sabal Trail cases pending in the Middle District of Florida, except to the extent Defendant may use the documents to support its claims and defenses. Plaintiff's Motion to Rec onsider Order Granting Limited Expedited Discovery (Doc. # 35 ) is DENIED to the extent that it seeks reconsideration the Court's Order to produce Request Nos. 3, 9, 13, 16, and 20 of Defendant's First Request to Produce. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/29/2016. (BLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
SABAL TRAIL TRANSMISSION, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-640-T-33AEP

9.669 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS,
IN POLK COUNTY FLORIDA, ET AL.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Sabal Trail
Transmission,

LLC’s

Motion

to

Reconsider

Order

Granting

Limited Expedited Discovery (Doc. # 35), filed on April 26,
2016, and Defendant’s response in opposition (Doc. # 37),
filed on April 28, 2016.

For the reasons that follow, the

Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Discussion
On April 20, 2016, this Court entered an Order granting
limited expedited discovery in order for Defendant Benner
Land Corporation to obtain information necessary and relevant
to defending against Sabal Trail’s motion for partial summary
judgment and motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 31).
The Order directed Sabal Trail to make a good faith effort to
produce certain documents by April 29, 2016, and to make three

1 

individuals – Brian Armitage, Marty Bass, and Ed Gonzales –
available for depositions by that date.

(Id. at 5-6).

In

its Motion for Reconsideration, Sabal Trail requests that the
Court modify its April 20, 2016, Order.

(Doc. # 35).

A court may only grant a motion for reconsideration under
Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., if it is based on “newlydiscovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.”
Anderson v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 567 F. App’x 679, 680
(11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343
(11th Cir. 2007)).
extraordinary

Granting relief under Rule 59(e) is “an

remedy

to

be

employed

sparingly

in

the

interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources.”

U.S. v. DeRochemont, No. 8:10-cr-287-T-24-MAP,

2012 WL 13510, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2012) (citation
omitted).
A party “cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate
old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”

Michael

Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763
(11th Cir. 2005). Rather, this Court recognizes three grounds
to justify reconsideration of a prior order under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and

2 

(3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.”
Fla. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds,
Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998).
Here, Sabal Trail contends that reconsideration of the
Court’s April 20, 2016, Order is necessary to correct clear
error or manifest injustice.

(Doc. # 35 at 2-3).

As such,

Sabal Trail requests that the Court revise its Order as
follows: (1) relieve Sabal Trail of its obligation to produce
Marty Bass for deposition by April 29, 2016; (2) allow Sabal
Trail to assert legally cognizable privileges with respect to
the expedited discovery if those privileges are documented in
a privilege log; (3) require Defendant to keep any documents
produced

pursuant

to

the

Court’s

April

20,

2016,

Order

confidential, except to the extent Defendant may use the
documents to support its claims and defenses; and (4) relieve
Sabal Trail of its obligation to produce documents responsive
to Request Nos. 3, 9, 13, 16, and 20 of Defendant’s First
Request to Produce (Doc. # 26-1), or limit production to
documents
website.

available

on

the

FERC

eLibrary

or

Plaintiff’s

(Doc. # 35).

Defendant does not oppose the requested modifications as
to (1) through (3), and the Court finds these modifications
appropriate.

Thus, the only remaining issue before the Court

3 

is whether to modify Sabal Trail’s obligation to produce
documents responsive to Request Nos. 3, 9, 13, 16, and 20 of
Defendant’s First Request to Produce. When the Court tailored
the scope of expedited discovery the first time, it implicitly
determined that each of these categories of documents is
necessary and relevant to Defendant’s ability to respond to
Sabal

Trail’s

motions

for

preliminary injunction.

partial

summary

judgment

and

The Court has not been persuaded

otherwise, nor is it persuaded that Sabal Trail has identified
a “clear error” or “manifest injustice” in the terms of the
scope

of

expedited

discovery.

Thus,

the

Motion

for

Reconsideration is due to be denied to the extent Sabal Trail
seeks relief from producing those categories of documents.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Limited
Expedited Discovery (Doc. # 35) is GRANTED in part to
the extent described below.

(2)

Plaintiff is relieved of its obligation to produce Marty
Bass for deposition by April 29, 2016.

(3)

Plaintiff may assert legally cognizable privileges with
respect to the expedited discovery if those privileges
are documented in a privilege log.

4 

(4)

Defendant shall keep any documents produced pursuant to
the Court’s Order (Doc. # 31) confidential as against
any individual or entity that is not a defendant to the
Sabal Trail cases pending in the Middle District of
Florida, except to the extent Defendant may use the
documents to support its claims and defenses.

(5)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Limited
Expedited Discovery (Doc. # 35) is DENIED to the extent
that

it

seeks

reconsideration

the

Court’s

Order

to

produce Request Nos. 3, 9, 13, 16, and 20 of Defendant’s
First Request to Produce.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
29th day of April, 2016.

5