Bostick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 112

ORDER denying (Doc. # 107 ) Lisa Bostick's Motion for Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/13/2017. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LISA N. BOSTICK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-1400-T-33AAS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Lisa N. Bostick’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 107),
which was filed on October 12, 2017.
Mutual

Automobile

Insurance

Company

Defendant State Farm
filed

a

Response

in

Opposition (Doc. # 109) on October 13, 2017. The Court denies
the Motion.
I.

Legal Standard
Bostick’s Motion will be decided under Rule 59(e) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Motion was filed
within 28 days of entry of the Order she challenges.

Ludwig

v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 8:03-cv-2378-T-17-MAP, 2005
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37718, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005).
As stated in

Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine,

Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308
(M.D.

Fla.

1998),

“a

motion

for

reconsideration

must

demonstrate why the court should reconsider its past decision

and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Further, “in
the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources, reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly.” Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of
Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).
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 (3) the need to
correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Fla. Coll. of
Osteopathic Med., Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d at 1308.

Further, as

explained in Ludwig, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37718, at *8, “this
Court will not reconsider its judgment when the motion for
reconsideration

fails

to

raise

new

issues

but,

instead,

relitigates that which the Court previously found lacking.”
Id. at *9-10.

In addition, “a motion for reconsideration is

not the proper forum for the party to vent dissatisfaction
with the Court’s reasoning.” Id. at *11. (citation omitted).
II.

Analysis
Here, Bostick does not assert that there has been an

intervening change in controlling law.

Nor does she contend

that she has discovered new evidence that should be presented
2

to the Court.

Instead, Bostick re-asserts the arguments that

she previously presented in response to State Farm’s Motion to
Strike. The Court carefully scrutinized Bostick’s arguments
and addressed these arguments in the Order granting the Motion
to Strike. Bostick has not raised a new ground and has not
persuaded the Court that it reached an erroneous decision.
In the Order granting State Farm’s Motion to Strike, the
Court highlighted that Bostick did not disclose Dr. Shelley
Tindell-Nodine as a witness prior to the filing of the
pretrial statement. Specifically, Bostick did not advise State
Farm that she intended to call Dr. Tindell-Nodine as a witness
until August 7, 2017. (Doc. # 106 at 6).

It is not contested

that Dr. Tindell-Nodine was not “included in Plaintiff’s
Initial,

First

Amended,

or

Second

Amended

Rule

26

Disclosures.” (Id.). The discovery deadline passed on April
20, 2017, and it would be unfair to allow Bostick to call upon
Dr. Tindell-Nodine because she is a surprise witness.
Bostick contends that State Farm has been aware of Dr.
Tindell-Nodine’s existence since as early as May of 2016, when
the case was still pending in state court. At that early stage
of the litigation, Bostick provided State Farm with relevant
medical records. (Doc. # 107 at 1). Bostick also recites all
of the times she made State Farm aware of Dr. Tindell-Nodine’s
3

course of treatment and explains that one of State Farm’s
witnesses relies on Dr. Tindell-Nodine’s records. (Id. at 2).
However,

being

aware

of

an

individual’s

existence

and

understanding that an individual has been designated as a
trial witness are two entirely separate concepts.
The inclusion of Dr. Tindell-Nodine as a witness at this
juncture would severely prejudice State Farm due to State
Farm’s “inability to depose her, engage in any sort of
significant discovery related to her, as well as the extent
and history of her specific practice.” (Doc. # 109 at 2).
And, with the jury trial scheduled to begin in one business
day, it is too late to re-open discovery in an effort to allow
State Farm the opportunity to conduct discovery regarding Dr.
Tindell-Nodine.

The Court reiterates its admonition that it

will not allow a trial by ambush. Bostick’s Motion for
Reconsideration is therefore denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff Lisa N. Bostick’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. # 107) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in
Chambers

in

Tampa,

Florida, this 13th day of
4

October, 2017.

5