*1 This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion asking me to consider a prior order regarding a subpoena duces tecum directed to non-party CVS (Pharmacy) #1556. Defs.' Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 274; Order of Dec. 20, 2021, ECF No. 266. On December 20, 2021, I granted in part Plaintiff's motion to quash or modify Defendants' original subpoena directed to CVS (Pharmacy) # 1156 seeking Plaintiff's complete pharmacy records, see ECF No. 178-1, at 1–7, and ordered that the paragraph following the heading “Requested Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things,” id. at 7, be modified to read:

Id. (italics added to represent court-ordered modifications). As modified, the subpoena sought a limited range of Plaintiff's pharmacy records that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and authorized the Custodian of Records at CVS Pharmacy to disclose any otherwise “protected matter” consistent with federal and state law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii). Defendants made the required modifications to the subpoena. See Defs.' Mot. to Reconsider Ex. B, ECF No. 274-2, at 7.

On December 27, 2021, Defendants served the amended subpoena, as well as a certificate of resolution and copy of the modification order, on CVS #1556 and directed the pharmacy's Custodian of Records to produce the requested documents by 5:00 p.m. on January 15, 2022. See id. at 1–2, 8 (citing Va. Code § 32.1-127.1:03(H)(8)). On February 1, 2022, Defendants' counsel received a letter from a CVS Health Prescription Records Service Center employee stating,

Defs.' Mot. to Reconsider Ex. C, ECF No. 274-3, at 1 (emphasis added). Defendants interpret CVS Health's instructions to mean that the amended subpoena's “date range is acceptable, but the request for specific types of drugs,” i.e., “only ‘psychotropic' drugs,” “could not be completed.” See Defs.' Mot. to Reconsider 2–3.

Two days later, Defendants filed this Motion asking the Court to “reconsider its Order and modify the language in the [amended] subpoena to omit the word ‘psychotropic’ ” so CVS Health/Pharmacy could produce Plaintiff's pharmacy records from the specified timeframe to Defendants' counsel for review. Id. at 3. Alternatively, Defendants could “instruct CVS Pharmacy to produce the[se] documents directly to the Court for an in-camera review and to determine which records Defendants may receive” consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Court's prior orders. See id. Plaintiff responded that he “ha[d] no objection to” the Court reviewing his CVS Pharmacy records in camera to determine “which prescription drugs fit the limitation set forth in” the prior discovery order. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Mot. to Reconsider 1–2 (citing Order of Dec. 20, 2021, at 1), ECF No. 284; see Defs.' Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Reconsider 1 (“Plaintiff appears to have no objection to the Court ordering further modification of the CVS subpoena, specifically modifications to omit any reference to ‘psychotropic' drugs. The only remaining dispute is where and to whom CVS should produce those records. Defendants and Plaintiff both state than an in camera review would be agreeable and satisfactory for these records.”). On March 15, 2022, I held a hearing on the record at which counsel for both parties addressed the Motion.

*2 “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion to reconsider, denominated as such,” Potter v. Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550, 552 (D. Md. 2001), although such requests “are common in federal practice,” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hart, 366 F. Supp. 2d 315, 317 (E.D.N.C. 2004) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rule 54 “provides that ‘any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time.’ ” Carrero v. Farrelly, 310 F. Supp. 3d 581, 583–84 (D. Md. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). “The precise standard governing a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is unclear,” Butler v. DirectSAT USA, LLC, 307 F.R.D. 445, 449 (D. Md. 2015), but it is clear they “are not subject to the strict standards applicable to motions of reconsideration of a final judgment” or final order under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514–15 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting that district courts enjoy “broad discretion to reconsider interlocutory orders” not involving “issues going to the court's Article III subject matter jurisdiction”). See Carrero, 310 F. Supp. 3d at 584. For example, relief under Rule 54(b) may be appropriate based on “new evidence that was not ... available” to the movant before the Court issued its order. See Wooten v. Commw. of Va., 168 F. Supp. 3d 890, 893 (W.D. Va. 2016) (Moon, J.). District courts also have “broad discretion to manage discovery and make discovery rulings.” W.S. v. Daniels, 258 F. Supp. 3d 640, 643 (D.S.C. 2017) (citing U.S. ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (“We afford substantial discretion to a district court in managing discovery and review discovery rulings only for abuse of that discretion.”)).

CVS Health's assertions that it “cannot” comply with the amended subpoena as written, but that it could complete an “update[d]” request for Plaintiff's “complete history without any specific drug” from the specified timeframe, Defs.' Mot. to Reconsider Ex. C, at 1, justifies granting Defendants' requested relief. Cf. Sines v. Kessler, No. 3:17cv72, 2021 WL 1143291, at *7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2021) (noting that pro se defendant's repeated failures to comply with court orders directing him to produce responsive materials to plaintiffs' counsel by a date certain justified entry of order directing third-party discovery vendor to produce these materials directly to plaintiffs' counsel “without the opportunity for [defendant's prior] review”). Accordingly, the Motion, ECF No. 274, is hereby GRANTED.

Attachment A to the subpoena duces tecum served on “CVS #1556, ATTN: Pharmacy, Custodian of Records,” ECF No. 274-2, at 2, is MODIFIED to read:

Id. at 7. Defendants' attorney shall promptly issue and serve an amended subpoena commanding the custodian of records at CVS Health's Prescription Records Service Center to return one complete paper copy of the requested documents in a sealed envelope to the issuing attorney's office at a specified date and time consistent with Rule 45(d)(2)(B).

Upon receipt, Defendants' counsel shall promptly deliver the sealed envelope to: United States District Court Clerk's Office, Attn: Heidi Wheeler, 255 W. Main Street, Room 304, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902. The undersigned Magistrate Judge will review the documents in camera to determine what information, if any, shall be produced to Defendants consistent with Rule 26(b) and the Court's prior discovery orders. See Order of Dec. 20, 2021, at 1. These materials shall be subject to the Stipulated Protective Order. See id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties.