On June 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith, substituting for the undersigned, entered an Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (the “Order”). Doc. No. 67. Plaintiffs moved to compel financial documents responsive to their requests to produce to which Defendants had asserted the following objection: “This request seeks documents which are irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. at 1. The Court granted the motion to compel as unopposed because Defendants failed to timely file a response to it. Id. at 3. The Court further found that Defendants failed to timely and properly object and therefore waived their objections by interposing boilerplate objections. Id. at 3-4.

On June 7, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order (the “Motion”). Doc. No. 69. Defendants argue for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Id. at 4-5. Rule 60(b) provides: “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”

Defendants seek relief due to their own mistake in failing “to specifically state [in their objections that] there is no entitlement to [p]unitive [d]amages under controlling law.”[1] Doc. No. 69 at 5. Alternatively, they rely on the catchall provision of Rule 60(b)(6). Id. at 3, 7. Defendants contend that any discovery related to Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages would be improper because Plaintiffs did not comply with Florida Statute § 768.72, which prohibits a claim for punitive damages and financial worth discovery “unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages ....” Doc. No. 69 at 6.

Defendants also argue that the Motion should be granted to prevent manifest injustice. Id. at 8. This argument relies on Section 768.72 as well and states that discovery of financial worth without Plaintiffs first establishing a reasonable evidentiary claim for punitive damages would violate Defendants’ “substantive legal right not to be exposed to a claim for punitive damages as well as a substantive legal right not to be exposed to financial worth discovery.” Id. at 10.

*2 The Court declines to reconsider the Order based on Defendants’ alleged mistake. Defendants cite no cases where a party was given the opportunity to state a new objection to discovery requests after the court granted a motion to compel and specifically ruled that the party waived their objections. The only reason Defendants provide for this mistake is that they did not realize the financial information was sought in furtherance of the punitive damages claim until Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel. Id. at 5-6. But Plaintiffs pleaded a request for punitive damages in their original complaint, Doc. No. 1 at 14, and their amended complaint, Doc. No. 16 at 17, 19, 20. In addition, regardless of how broadly “mistake” in Rule 60(b)(1) is interpreted, it does not encompass a mistake made solely by the party requesting reconsideration and not encompassed in the order. Defendants fail to demonstrate that their mistake warrants reconsideration of the Order.

Defendants also do not cite any authority that producing the requested financial information will result in a manifest injustice. Doc. No. 69 at 8-10. Instead they rely on Neill v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 1149, 1151 (M.D. Fla. 1997), in which the defendants moved to dismiss or strike the claims for punitive damages under Section 768.72.[2] The motion was granted, and the Court stated that a party has a substantive legal right not to be exposed to a claim for punitive damages or financial worth discovery. Id. at 1156. Not before the Neill Court was whether manifest injustice occurs when the Court orders production of the financial information after the party neglects to move to dismiss or strike the punitive damages claim, after the party fails to raise such an objection to the financial worth discovery requests, after the party then fails to timely respond to a motion to compel such discovery and the Court finds any such objections have been waived. As Defendants cite no authority for such a proposition, this argument is rejected.

The Motion is an attempt to avoid the consequences of the Order and the order denying Defendants’ motion to reopen discovery by belatedly asserting objections to discovery requests that should have been raised in March 2021 when Defendants responded to the requests. Doc. No. 64 at 19. Defendants offer no justifiable reason to permit such avoidance.

The Court does find that, upon review, the entirety of request to produce 46 is not relevant. The request asks for “[a]ll financial records of Defendant for the last three (3) years, minimally including all Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss Statements.” Doc. No. 64 at 17. “All financial records” are not relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, the Court limits this request to all balance sheets and profit and loss statements of Defendant for the last three years.

Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. No. 69) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 8, 2021.