*1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel Edwards, Jr.'s[1] Motion for Reconsideration, (Dkt. #96), of the Court's October 13, 2020 Order, (Dkt. #92), which granted Defendant Junior State of America Foundation's Motion to Compel, (Dkt. #70), and Motion for Sanctions, (Dkt. #71). Having considered the motion, the response, and the applicable legal authorities, the Court deems that Plaintiff's motion should be DENIED.

On September 3, 2020, Defendant Junior State of America Foundation (“JSA”) filed its Motion to Compel, (Dkt. #70), and Motion for Sanctions, (Dkt. #71), against Plaintiff Daniel Edwards, Jr., citing Edwards, Jr.'s purported failure to produce certain electronically stored information (“ESI”) requested during discovery. Specifically, JSA moved to compel production of Facebook Messages in HTML or JSON format between Daniel Edwards, Jr. and certain JSA peers (including Cole Harper) exchanged around the time Edwards, Jr. allegedly received discriminatory messages from Cole Harper. See (Dkt. #70-1 at 7–8). JSA avers that it filed its motions to compel and for sanctions only after months of effort to confer with Plaintiffs' counsel and a dozen or more attempts to procure the above-referenced ESI. (Dkt. #99 ¶ 1). In response to each such attempt, JSA claims, Edwards, Jr. either ignored the request outright or promised but never delivered the requested information. (Dkt. #99 ¶ 1). Moreover, Plaintiffs failed to file any response in opposition to JSA's motions to compel and for sanctions prior to the Court's hearing on those motions on September 18, 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Court issued an order granting JSA's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions against Edwards, Jr. (Dkt. #92). The Court ordered Edwards, Jr. to pay JSA $7,500 in sanctions to reimburse JSA's reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in preparing and arguing on behalf of JSA's motion to compel.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel Edwards, Jr.'s Motion for Reconsideration, (Dkt. #96). The motion contends, inter alia, that Edwards, Jr.'s failure to comply with Defendant's discovery request was not willful because Edwards, Jr.'s Facebook account is not active, and, thus, the precise information sought cannot be retrieved. (Dkt. #96 ¶¶ 1–4, 13). Accordingly, Edwards, Jr. asserts, no “true violation” of the rules of discovery has occurred and sanctions are unwarranted. (Dkt. #96 ¶ 13). Nevertheless, Edwards, Jr. represents that a digital forensics company, Protegga, LLC—now Rubio Digital Forensics—had preserved, as of 2016, Facebook and cell-phone data that is responsive to JSA's discovery requests. (Dkt. #96 ¶ 5). On October 15, 2020, two days after the Court's order compelling production and issuing sanctions, Edwards, Jr. provided JSA said data and two affidavits attesting to the data's accuracy. (Dkt. #96 ¶¶ 5–8; #96-1; #96-2). Edwards, Jr. maintains that because he produced these materials to JSA on October 15, 2020—before the close of discovery and purportedly in compliance with the Court's October 13, 2020, Order—“Defendant's motion for sanctions was improper, unnecessary, and premature.” (Dkt. #96 ¶¶ 9, 11).

*2 JSA has filed a response in opposition to Edwards, Jr.'s motion, (Dkt. #99), asserting that Edwards, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration: (1) fails to state a legitimate basis on which the Court may change its decision, (Dkt. #99 ¶¶ 6–9); and (2) misconstrues his responsibilities under the rules of discovery, (Dkt. #99 ¶¶ 10–16). The Court agrees.

Motions for reconsideration are not expressly authorized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, federal courts recognize and adjudicate on the merits motions for reconsideration made under Rules 59 or 60. See, e.g., In re Deepwater Horizon, 765 F.App'x 980, 981–82 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Given that Edwards, Jr. filed the instant motion, (Dkt. #96), as one seeking reconsideration and neither cited Rule 59 nor used the language “motion to alter judgment,” cf. (Dkt. #102), the Court presumes that Edwards, Jr. seeks to move for reconsideration under Rule 60.

A motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) must be filed “within a reasonable time” but “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). For three reasons, Edwards, Jr.'s motion is facially defective. First, Edwards, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration fails to adhere to Local Rule CV-7(a)(4), which provides that “[m]otions to reconsider must specifically state the action and the docket sheet document number to be reconsidered in the title of the motion (e.g., ‘Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (dkt # x)’).” Second, while Rule 60 does not impose a hard deadline on when to file a motion for reconsideration, it requires that a party file “within a reasonable time.” Edwards, Jr. filed his motion for reconsideration on November 3, 2020, only after payment of the sanction had already come due. See (Dkt. #92 at 4). Third, Edwards, Jr.'s motion does not invoke any legal authority in its motion to reconsider—including the applicable legal standard under Rule 60—much less explain how one of the grounds for reconsideration enumerated in Rule 60 applies here. Edwards, Jr.'s motion is thus non-compliant, untimely, and bereft of legal authority to support the requested relief. Nevertheless, the Court considers whether any of the Rule 60 reasons apply here and concludes that none do.

A Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration may be granted only in cases of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ... misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment's becoming void; (5) the judgment's being satisfied, released, or discharged; its being based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or, applying it prospectively, it's no longer being equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).

None of the above-listed grounds for relief applies here. That is, nothing before the Court indicates that mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a defect with the judgment, or an alternative theory of reconsideration taints the Court's October 13, 2020, Order. To the contrary, that order correctly notes that Edwards, Jr. not only failed to produce the requested ESI for ten months after JSA issued the discovery request but also failed to provide any reasonable explanation to JSA about his failure to produce the ESI. (Dkt. #92 at 2).

*3 Moreover, the Facebook and cell-phone data to which Edwards, Jr. refers, (Dkt. #96 ¶ 5), is not “newly discovered evidence” because, according to Plaintiffs' own recitation of events, the referenced Facebook and cell-phone data could have been produced at any time from 2016 onward. Plaintiffs simply failed to do so. Specifically, “Edwards, Sr. did not even ask [purported digital forensics expert Graciela] Rubio for Edwards, Jr.'s Facebook data until October 19, 2020, six days after the Court granted JSA's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions.” (Dkt. #99 ¶ 13) (referencing (Dkt. #96-1 ¶ 8)). Nor did Plaintiffs provide JSA with the apparently latent 2016 affidavit from Protegga, LLC, (Dkt. #96-2)—also attesting to the accuracy of Edwards, Jr.'s Facebook and cell-phone data—until the Court had already compelled production and issued sanctions. See (Dkt. #96 ¶ 6). Thus, any evidence stemming from Plaintiffs' contracting Protegga, LLC or Rubio Digital Forensics cannot constitute “newly discovered evidence” under Rule 60(b)(2), and such information does not independently justify reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6). No other basis for reconsideration enumerated in Rule 60 is even remotely applicable. In short, Edwards, Jr. has not presented, and the Court cannot identify, any applicable reason for reconsideration under Rule 60.

Moreover, Edwards, Jr.'s reconsideration motion misunderstands his responsibilities under the rules of discovery. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a thirty-day deadline to respond to discovery requests. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). Yet, Edwards, Jr. asserts that “[t]he agreed deadline for discovery (October 15, 2020) was forty-two (42) days away when the Defendant filed their Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions on September 3, 2020.” (Dkt. #96 ¶ 12). But under the Court's Second Amended Scheduling Order, October 15, 2020 was the date by which all discovery in the case was to be completed, (Dkt. #62 at 2), not the deadline for Edwards, Jr. to respond to JSA's specific requests for production concerning ESI, which was January 10, 2020. Under Edwards, Jr.'s logic, he is free to ignore and refuse to respond to specific discovery requests for many months, so long as he ultimately produces the requested documents by the close of discovery. As with Edwards, Jr.'s other arguments, this contention has no foundation in law and is rejected.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, (Dkt. #96), is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of January, 2021.