EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. J AND R BAKER FARMS LLC et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 11/13/2015. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and
DEREK DAVIS, et al.,

Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-136 (HL)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
J & R BAKER FRAMS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 56).
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 54) granting Defendants’
Motion to Compel (Doc. 23) and denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash (Doc. 37).
Local Rule 7.6 warns, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a
matter of routine practice.” M.D.Ga. L.R. 7.6. “Reconsideration is appropriate
only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been an intervening change in
the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was not previously
available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the court made
a clear error of law.” Bryant v. Citigroup, Inc., 2012 WL 3260443, at *1 (M.D. Ga.
Aug. 8, 2012) (quoting Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D.Ga. Jan.

21, 2010). “[A] motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to
simply reargue the issue the Court has once determined.” Pennamon v. United
Bank, 2009 WL 2355816, at *1 (M.D.Ga. July 28, 2009) (quoting Am. Ass’n of
People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1340 (M.D.Fla. 2003)).
Further, opinions issued by the court “are not intended as mere first drafts,
subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Id. (quotation and
citation omitted).
The local rule further instructs that “motions for reconsideration shall be
filed within fourteen (14) days after entry of the order.” M.D.Ga. L.R. 7.6. Plaintiff
filed its motion on October 8, 2015, 29 days after entry of the Court’s September
9, 2015 order. A day or two prior to the filing of this motion, Plaintiff contacted the
Court, stating that it had misapprehended the local rule and asking for permission
to file its motion for reconsideration. Without commenting on the timeliness of the
motion, the Court suggested that if Plaintiff wished to file such a motion it needed
to act expeditiously.
Defendants have not raised the issue of timeliness in response to Plaintiff’s
motion. And, since the Court otherwise finds that the motion fails to meet the
requisite standard, the Court will make no further ado about when Plaintiff filed
the motion. However, the Court cannot ignore Plaintiff’s continued disregard for
the local rules. Even after acknowledging that it consulted an outdated version of
the rules prior to filing its motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff perpetuated this
2

failure by neglecting to take heed of the rule’s final provision: “There shall be no
reply brief.” Id. Plaintiff’s November 10, 2015 reply brief is, accordingly stricken
from the record. Plaintiff is cautioned that further violations of the local rules will
not be tolerated.
On May 4, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses from Plaintiff (Doc. 23), seeking, in part, a list of all known class
members alleged to have been either involuntarily terminated or constructively
discharged by Defendants along with information pertaining to the circumstances
of the alleged discharge. During the course of briefing the motion, and again
during the hearing held on September 8, 2015, Plaintiff represented to the Court
that the purported class consists of approximately 2000 members. Plaintiff,
noting the vast size of the class, argued that it would be an insurmountable task
to comply with Defendants’ discovery requests.
Finding Defendants’ request reasonable and within the scope of discovery,
the Court fashioned a resolution, taking into account both Defendants’ need to
gather pertinent information regarding Plaintiff’s discharge claims and Plaintiff’s
concern that producing information for the entirety of the class would be impose
an undue hardship on Plaintiff. Consequently, the Court directed Plaintiff to set
forth the circumstances surrounding the discharge of a representative portion of
the class. The Court specified that Plaintiff must compile,

3

1)

a list of all known class members who allege they were
involuntarily terminated and when the termination occurred;

2)

a list of all known class members who allege they were
constructively discharged and when the discharge occurred;
and

3)

detailed anecdotal information for a representation portion of
the class members, which the Court finds to be at least 250
individuals.

(Doc. 54, p. 3).
Now, Plaintiff moves the Court to revise the terms of its order to reduce the
number of potential class members for whom Plaintiff must illustrate the nature
and terms of termination. Plaintiff states that it mistakenly represented the class
size to the Court, having confused the number of potential class members with
the number of questionnaires issued by Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, the class
size is more accurately measured at 332 members. Plaintiff states that to be
required to provide anecdotal information for what would amount to 75 percent of
the class would impose an injustice and a hardship on Plaintiff.
The Court is disinclined to revise its previous ruling. It is Plaintiff’s
responsibility to review its own documentation diligently and to be prepared to
provide accurate information to the Court. Additionally, there is no evidence that
the information Plaintiff used to arrive at the revised number was somehow
unavailable to Plaintiff at the time of the hearing. Plaintiff’s inability to manage its

4

case is an error of its own making, not the Court’s. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider
the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to compel is thus denied.
Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to revise its ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to
quash is, likewise, denied. Plaintiff’s motion simply reiterates argument already
considered by the Court in fashioning its order, and the Court is not persuaded
that its previous ruling was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of November, 2015.

s/ Hugh Lawson________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

aks

5