MURRAY
v.
TAYLOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery on grounds that the motion failed to comply with local rules and discovery had been stayed. The court also denied any implicit request for reconsideration, finding no legal basis for revisiting the discovery stay.
The motion to compel discovery is denied. The motion fails to comply with Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), and discovery remains stayed. Any implicit request for reconsideration of the discovery stay is also denied because plaintiff provided no legal argument or basis meeting the requirements for reconsideration.
[1] A motion to compel discovery is properly denied when discovery in the case has been stayed.
[2] A motion for reconsideration must address the legal requirements for reconsideration and provide supporting legal argument.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“discovery in this case has been stayed”
Establishes that discovery was previously stayed, which is the basis for denying the motion to compel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is a case involving Janelle Irwin Taylor, Peter D. Schorsch, and Extensive Enterprises Media, LLC as defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion to comp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 30) FILED: May 22, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. The Court does not require the benefit of a response to rule on the motion. Not only does this motion fail to comply with Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), but discovery in this case has been stayed. Doc. No. 26. To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order staying discovery, that request is DENIED. [...] motion does not address any of the legal requirements for reconsideration nor provide any legal argument in support of that relief. See Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (“Motions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), aff'd sub nom. Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 215 F. App’x 879 (11th Cir. 2007)). See also Doc. No. 28. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 22, 2024.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins., 2006 WL 1528792 (M.D. Fla. 2006)