Datto v. Florida International University Board of Trustees et al

Filing 98

ORDER denying 96 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 12/30/2020. See attached document for full details. (scn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:20-cv-20360-BLOOM/Louis
JEFFREY PETER DATTO, PH.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion for Clarification on
Court Order Entered on 11/06/2020, ECF No. [96] (“Motion”). The Court has considered the
Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised.
On November 6, 2020, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. [70] (“Order”). In the Order, the Court found that
Plaintiff set forth good cause for seeking leave after the Scheduling Order deadline and that there
was no substantial reason to deny leave to amend. Id.
Plaintiff now contends that at a recent discovery hearing before Judge Louis, she “stated
on the record that she did not find this information [as to the “new evidence” Plaintiff received and
referenced in his motion for leave to amend] to be relevant.” ECF No. [97] at 2. Plaintiff represents
that he intends to “instantly appeal the order if Judge Louis has not changed her mind.” Id.
Accordingly, he seeks clarification on whether the “new evidence” was “part of the good cause
causing the Court to allow Plaintiff to re-assert the RA claim, and if so, can he be allowed to
perform discovery further investigating this ‘new evidence.’” Id.

Case No. 1:20-cv-20360-BLOOM/Louis
Upon review, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request. As an initial matter, the Motion
functionally seeks to undermine Judge Louis’ rulings made at the December 17, 2020 hearing, and
equally, to preempt any potential ruling that is expected. See ECF No. [93] (noting that an order is
“to follow”). While Plaintiff contends that he will appeal any adverse ruling, no such objection is
properly before the Court. The Court will not upend the proper appellate procedure nor use the
Order on leave to amend as a “back door” or otherwise improper method for Plaintiff to reargue
discovery issues. Moreover, while the Court did make limited references to the “new evidence,”
ECF No. [70] at 7, it did so (along with listing other reasons) to provide context for finding good
cause to “excuse Plaintiff’s belated filing of the [motion for leave to amend].” Id. The Court made
no determination in the Order that the “new evidence” was relevant to this lawsuit. In fact, the
Order expressly noted that Plaintiff himself “believe[d] this additional evidence is not needed for
the complaint to be plausible on its face[.]” Id. at 3 n.2. Therefore, the Motion is without merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [96], is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 30, 2020.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Jeffrey Peter Datto, Ph.D.
3352 W. 98th Place
Hialeah, FL 33018
215-915-4416

2

Case No. 1:20-cv-20360-BLOOM/Louis
Email: [e-mail]

3