noting that “reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JERRI TORRES,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:21-cv-892-TPB-JSS
PASCO COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff seeks additional time to conduct discovery and moves for
reconsideration of the court’s order setting deadlines for the case. (Motion, Dkt. 105.)
Defendant did not submit a response to the Motion and the time to do so has expired.1
The Motion is therefore deemed unopposed. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(c). Upon
consideration, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff sued her former employer for sexual harassment, hostile work
environment, retaliation, and sex discrimination. (Dkt. 62.) The original Case
Management and Scheduling Order initially set the discovery deadline in this case for
December 10, 2021. (Dkt. 61.) On January 27, 2022, following motions from the
1 Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s original motion to extend discovery (Dkt. 98) but did not
respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
parties and difficulties scheduling depositions, the court extended the discovery
deadline to March 11, 2022. (Dkt. 76.) On March 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed an emergency
motion for sanctions against Defendant and alleged violations of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and discovery rules. (Dkt. 80.) Following a hearing, the court granted
Plaintiff leave to conduct very limited additional discovery. (Dkt. 90.)
On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff again moved to extend the discovery deadline.
(Dkt. 94.) The motion included a very limited explanation of the basis for the request,
stating only that during recent depositions, “certain details and facts sprung up which
necessitate further discovery and depositions of other witnesses.” (Dkt. 94 at 1.)
Plaintiff also requested additional time to obtain the deposition of a witness that was
on maternity leave. (Id.)
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to extend
discovery (“Discovery Order”). (Dkt. 100.) The court granted additional time to take
the deposition due to the specific circumstances. As to Plaintiff’s request to generally
extend discovery, the court denied the motion upon finding that Plaintiff failed to
demonstrate good cause for another extension of the discovery deadline. (Id. at 3.) In
this Motion, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Discovery Order. (Dkt. 105.)
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 & Tr. Co. v. Shirley Inv. Properties, LLC, No.
8:13-cv-528-T-23MAP, 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, 684–85 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
(noting that “reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources”).
ANALYSIS
In this Motion, Plaintiff offers a detailed explanation of the basis for her request
to extend discovery. (Dkt. 105.) Plaintiff indicates that she was targeted, intimidated,
and harassed in her workplace and seeks additional discovery to support these
allegations. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff further identifies specific facts that were revealed during
recent depositions and explains why additional discovery into these facts is required
to support her claims. Pro se filings must be liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). As such, the court finds, in its discretion,
that reconsideration of the Discovery Order is warranted. The court grants the parties
an additional forty-five (45) days to conduct further discovery.
However, Plaintiff is advised that, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26, she may only seek discovery that is not privileged and “relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case” in this action. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks discovery that may be relevant
only to her “defamation case in state court,” this information falls outside the scope of
permissible discovery in this action. See Maronda Homes, Inc. of Fla. v. Progressive Exp.
Ins. Co., No. 6:14-cv-1287-ORL-31, 2014 WL 6610932, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21,
2014) (denying discovery relevant only to state court claims).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 105) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as stated herein.
2. The discovery deadline is extended to July 5, 2022.
3. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to August 4, 2022.
4. Plaintiff's Motion is otherwise denied.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 19, 2022.
ee. i Rises
JUEKIE $. SNEED
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
_4-