BTL INDUSTRIES, INC.
v.
NEXTWELLNESS USA LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2024-01-03
No. 6:16-cv-2014
2018 WL 10669778 2024 FFL 219 District Court, M.D. Florida (2024) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 123 F.R.D. 282
Cited by 23 cases

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.

Synopsis

BTL Industries sought reconsideration of the court's December 4, 2023 order granting Defendant NextWellness USA LLC's motion to extend the fact discovery deadline to January 2, 2024. The court denied BTL's motion for reconsideration, finding that BTL failed to meet the stringent requirements for this extraordinary remedy.

Holding

The court denied BTL's motion for reconsideration, holding that BTL failed to satisfy any of the three grounds justifying reconsideration: intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court found no basis to revisit its prior assessment that an extension of the discovery deadline was appropriate.

Headnotes

[1] Reconsideration of a court order is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.

[2] Grounds justifying reconsideration of a court order include an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error…

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
Facts & Procedural History

BTL Industries filed a motion for reconsideration of a prior order that granted the defendant's request for an extension of the discovery deadline. BT…

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.

Topics
Availability Of New Evidence Intervening Change In Controlling Law Local Rule 3.01(G) Motion For Reconsideration

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Availability Of New Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff BTL's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 92), filed December 6, 2023. Defendant did not respond to the Motion, and the time to do so has expired. Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be denied.

Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider its December 4, 2023, Endorsed Order (Doc. 90) granting Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 87), which extended the fact discovery deadline to January 2, 2024. Reconsideration of a court order is an extraordinary remedy and power that should be used sparingly. Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993). “Court opinions are ‘not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” Hope v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 6:16-cv-2014-Orl-28GJK, 2018 WL 10669778, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2018) (quoting Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus. Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)). To that end, courts have “delineated three major grounds justifying

reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

Plaintiff argus that Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 87) did not comply with Local Rule 3.01(g), mispresented communications between the two parties, did not provide good cause for the extension, and requested discovery that “could be highly burdensome” to Plaintiff. (Doc. 92 at 2.) However, the Motion for Reconsideration does not directly address any of the three available grounds for reconsideration. “For reasons of policy, courts and litigants cannot be repeatedly called upon to backtrack through the paths of litigation . . . .” Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694. Beyond this, the Court considered both Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 87) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Depositions Out of Time (Doc. 88). Given the relief requested in both motions, the undersigned determined that an extension of the fact discovery deadline was appropriate, and nothing has been presented to change that assessment. For these reasons, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its prior Order.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff BTL’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 92) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 3, 2024.

EMBRY J. KIDD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

  • Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
    …an opportunity to simply reargue an issue the Court has once determined. Court opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill.1988). As aptly stated by the district court in Settino v. City of Chicago, 642 F.Supp. 755 (N.D.Ill.1986): Plaintiff[’s] counsel betrayfs] an all-too-prevalent misconception of the litigation process, in which the knocked-ou…
  • Singh v. Lemma, 149 F.R.D. 235 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
    …s are ‘not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.’” Hope v. Sec'y., Dep't. of Corr. & AG, 2018 WL 10669778, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2018) (quoting Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)). Courts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.…
    1 / 2
  • BTL Indus., Inc. v. Nextwellness USA LLC, 2018 WL 10669778 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …ta/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993). “Court opinions are ‘not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” Hope v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 6:16-cv-2014-Orl-28GJK, 2018 WL 10669778, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2018) (quoting Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus. Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)). To that end, courts have “delineated three major grounds justifying ---PAGE 1--- Case 6:22-cv-1477-WWB-EJK Document 96 F…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw