Nazer v. Saint Petersburg Police Department et al

Filing 107

ORDER denying 104 Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 2/12/2018. (SMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
IZZAT NAZER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-2259-T-36JSS

FIVE BUCKS DRINKERY LLC and CITY
OF SAINT PETERSBURG,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court’s Order (“Amended Motion”) (Dkt. 104), and Defendant’s response in opposition (Dkt.
106). For the reasons that follow, the Amended Motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On October 9, 2017, Defendant Five Bucks Drinkery, LLC filed a Motion for Sanctions
and to Compel Plaintiff to Attend His Deposition and Respond to Defendant’s Discovery Requests
(“Motion to Compel”). (Dkt. 76.) The Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Compel on
November 9, 2017. (See Dkt. 84.) Despite having notice of the hearing through the Court’s
CM/ECF system, Plaintiff failed to attend the hearing. The Court granted in part Defendant’s
Motion to Compel, ordering Plaintiff to appear for his deposition in person by January 29, 2018
(“November 9 Order”). (Dkt. 87.) On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Unavailability,
stating that he is unable to attend court hearings or his deposition because he is not physically
present in the United States. (Dkt. 100.) On that date, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Reconsider,
seeking reconsideration of the Court’s November 9 Order. (Dkt. 101.) The Court denied

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider without prejudice for failing to comply with Local Rules 3.01(a)
and 3.01(g). (Dkt. 102.) Plaintiff now brings his Amended Motion, requesting the Court to
reconsider its November 9 Order because he “is unavailable and not physically present in the
United States, and attending his deposition is realistically unattainable.” (Dkt. 104 at 1.)
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
“[R]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). The
decision to grant a motion for reconsideration of a non-final order is committed to the sound
discretion of the court. Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800,
806 (11th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration requires the moving party to show: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct clear error or manifest injustice. Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Shirley Inv. Properties,
LLC, 2014 WL 12623802, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2014); see Wendy’s Int’l., Inc. v. Nu-Cape
Const., Inc., 169 F.R.D. 680, 684 (M.D. Fla. 1996).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff sole argument for reconsideration is that he is unavailable to attend his deposition
in the United States. (Dkt. 104.) As Defendants argue, Plaintiff does not “provide the Court with
legal proof of his absence from the United States.” (Dkt. 106 at 3.) Further, in his response to
Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Plaintiff made clear that he “is not physically present in the United
States and [it] would be impossible for him to attend a deposition in person.” (Dkt. 77 at 1.) Thus,
rather than showing a change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error, Plaintiff reiterates
the argument that he made in his response to the Motion to Compel. Motions for reconsideration,
however, “should not be used as a vehicle . . . to reiterate arguments previously made.” See Z.K.

-2-

Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992); Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at
694 (emphasizing that “[o]nly a change in the law, or the facts upon which a decision is based,
will justify a reconsideration of a previous order” because “courts and litigants cannot be
repeatedly called upon to backtrack through the paths of litigation which are often laced with close
questions”). Because Plaintiff asks the Court to review the same issues that it previously
considered in the November 9 Order, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion is denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Order (Dkt. 104) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 12, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-3-