Southern Coast K9, LLC and 360 Security Partners, LLC v. Marguerite Heiser and William Heiser

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of an order granting Defendants’ motions for protective orders concerning subpoenas to three financial institutions. The court held that Plaintiffs’ failure to meet discovery-response deadlines, despite representation by multiple attorneys, did not establish excusable neglect or justify reconsideration.

Holdings

1. A court may reconsider, revise, alter, or amend a non-final order under its authority recognized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and the standard may be more flexible than the standards under Rules 59(e) and 60(b).
2. Plaintiffs' failure to comply with an established discovery-response deadline because multiple attorneys overlooked or miscalculated the deadline did not establish excusable neglect, manifest injustice, clear error, or another basis warranting reconsideration.

Questions Presented

1. What standard governs reconsideration of the prior non-final discovery order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), as compared with Rules 59(e) and 60(b)?
2. Whether Plaintiffs demonstrated excusable neglect, manifest injustice, clear error, newly available evidence, or another sufficient basis to reconsider the order granting Defendants' protective orders.

Disposition

denied