*1 This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:

I. BACKGROUND.[1]

Plaintiff Classic Soft Trim, Inc. (“CST”) issued a non-party subpoena (the “Subpoena”) to non-party Joseph D. James seeking to depose him regarding an ESI search he performed on behalf of former Defendant Clearlight Partners, LLC in response to an earlier order on a motion to compel certain discovery. Doc. Nos. 296; 349-2; 435 at 4; 436. The Subpoena directed Mr. James to provide his “entire file related to his IT work” in this case. Id. Mr. James appeared at his deposition and brought his entire file. Doc. No. 436 at 11. Mr. James's testimony was that his entire file included only the documents provided at his deposition. Id. However, the file Mr. James provided at his deposition included redactions made by Defendant Katzkin Leather, Inc.’s counsel Don Howarth based on relevancy. Doc. Nos. 435 at 5; 436 at 12.

On November 2, 2020, CST filed a motion for sanctions against Katzkin for, among other things, redacting Mr. James's entire file, failing to provide the results of Mr. James's ESI search contained in a One Drive link that was provided directly to Mr. Howarth, and failing to comply with the underlying discovery order in terms of searches that were conducted.[2] Doc. No. 397. On February 10, 2021, this Court entered an order (the “Sanctions Order”) granting in part and denying in part the motion for sanctions and directing Katzkin to “provide the unredacted entire file produced at Mr. James's deposition to CST within forty-eight (48) hours from entry of this Order” and requiring Mr. Howarth to pay CST $500.00. Doc. No. 435 at 25. No other relief was granted and the remainder of the motion for sanctions was denied. Doc. No. 435.

On March 24, 2021, CST filed a motion to clarify or alter or amend the Sanctions Order (the “Motion”). Doc. No. 455. CST argues that “[i]f the direction in the [Sanctions] Order that ‘Katzkin shall provide the unredacted entire file produced at Mr. James's deposition to CST’ ... was intended to exclude the results of the ESI search provided to Defense counsel but withheld from production, Plaintiffs seek relief to avoid clear error and manifest injustice.” Doc. No. 455 at 4. CST argues that the One Drive link provided to Katzkin, but not retained by Mr. James as part of his file, contains ESI search results that should be a part of Mr. James's “entire file” and that Katzkin should be required to produce the One Drive link to CST. Id. CST relies on the affidavit of Brian Chase, CST's IT expert, who explains that when his firm collects data for a client it would still be considered part of the firm's file even if it is hosted on a cloud server. Id. at 5; Doc. No. 455-1 at 2. Mr. Chase also states that the best practice for any eDiscovery or digital forensics vendor is to always maintain a copy of digital evidence for chain of custody until explicitly instructed to destroy the data. Id. at 3. On this basis, CST argues the One Drive link is part of Mr. James's entire file and should have been disclosed in response to the Subpoena or by Katzkin in response to the Sanctions Order.[3] Doc. No. 455 at 7.

*2 On April 7, 2021, Katzkin filed its Response to the Motion. Doc. No. 460. Katzkin argues that the Sanctions Order was not ambiguous, that Mr. James was only required to certify the search conducted, not the results of the search, and that CST could have included the information in Mr. Chase's new affidavit in the affidavit it filed in support of the motion for sanctions and CST offers no explanation as to why it did not do so. Id. Katzkin also argues that, unlike Mr. Chase's hypothetical situation or his firm practices, the documents returned by Mr. James's ESI search were never retained, stored, or hosted by Mr. James or his employer. Id. at 7. Finally, Katzkin argues that to the extent CST is also challenging Katzkin's right to withhold non-responsive emails and texts from production, it is actually challenging the underlying discovery order which specifically provided that counsel could review the ESI search results for purposes of responsiveness and privilege.[4] Id.; Doc. No. 296 at 3-4. Katzkin seeks attorney's fees based on CST's failure to satisfy the standard set forth in Rule 11(b)(1)(3) and needlessly increasing the costs of this litigation. Id. at 11-12.

II. ANALYSIS.

The Sanctions Order states quite clearly that the “entire file” to be produced by Katzkin was the file Mr. James brought to his deposition in redacted form.[5] Doc. No. 435. CST's request to have Katzkin provide the actual search results from the One Drive link was denied. Doc. No. 435 at 25. What CST actually seeks is reconsideration of the Sanctions Order itself. CST argues Mr. James's “entire file” includes the One Drive link that was provided to Katzkin's counsel which contains all the search results, and CST seeks an order requiring Katzkin to turn that One Drive link with the search results over to CST to avoid “clear error” and “manifest injustice.” Doc. No. 455 at 4.

Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy. Ludwig v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 8:03-cv-2378, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37718, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005). “Courts have recognized three (3) grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Villaflores v. Royal Venture Cruise Lines, No. 96-2103-civ, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18727, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 1997).

Courts have broad discretion to amend prior decisions, but a court “will not alter a prior decision absent a showing of ‘clear and obvious error’ where ‘the interest of justice’ demand[s] correction.” Prudential Sec., Inc. v. Emerson, 919 F. Supp. 415, 417 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (quoting Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985)). A “motion for reconsideration cannot be used to ‘relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of [the subject order].’ ” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)).

*3 Collar v. Abalux, Inc., No. 16-20872, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222617, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2019) (quoting Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (citations and brackets omitted)).

This Court has carefully considered the matter of what constitutes Mr. James's entire file in two separate orders, one denying a motion for contempt against Mr. James (Doc. No. 436), and the Sanctions Order (Doc. No. 435). Despite this, CST seeks to have this Court reconsider what constitutes Mr. James's entire file based on a newly filed affidavit from Mr. Chase. Doc. Nos. 455; 455-1. CST provides no explanation as to why this information was not included in Mr. Chase's affidavit which CST filed in support of the motion for sanctions. Doc. No. 397-1. Denial of a request for reconsideration is “especially soundly exercised when the party has failed to articulate any reason for the failure to raise an issue at an earlier stage in the litigation.” Prudential Sec., Inc., 919 F. Supp. at 417 (quoting Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 667 (11th Cir. 1990)); Villaflores, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18727, at *6 (party who fails to present its strongest case in the first instance generally has no right to raise new theories or arguments in a motion for reconsideration); see also McGuire v. Ryland Group, Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (court will not reconsider where plaintiff seeks to relitigate what has already been found lacking). Thus, the Motion will be denied.

Katzkin seeks attorney's fees under Rule 11(c) because the Motion needlessly increased litigation, is meritless, and is duplicative of objections already filed, all in violation of Rule 11(b)(1) and (b)(3). Doc. No. 460 at 11-12; Fed R. Civ. P. 11. Katzkin offers no authority in support of its request for fees under Rule 11 beyond the rule itself.

Rule 11(c)(1) provides that the Court may impose an appropriate sanction against an attorney, law firm or party that violates Rule 11(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). The purpose of Rule 11 is to “reduce frivolous claims, defenses, or motions and to deter costly meritless maneuvers.” Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1557 (11th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). The decision to impose sanctions is discretionary. See Bullard v. Downs, 161 F. App'x 886, 887 (11th Cir. 2006) (court has discretion to impose appropriate sanction upon determining a violation exists). The Court declines to award attorney's fees to Katzkin for responding to the Motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 455) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on April 14, 2021.