*1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the parties' consent to proceed before the United States magistrate judge, Doc. 14, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant Crosta and Partners, LLC, and Depositions of Vijay Goli, Kirk Mendez, Crosta and Partners, LLC (CA), Crosta and Partners, LLC (AK), Luxury Lease Company, and Houston Crosta and Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories to Crosta and Partners, LLC and Requests for Production and Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Crosta and Partners, LLC (CA), Crosta and Partners, LLC (AK), Luxury Lease Company, and Houston Crosta, Doc. 59 (the “Motion to Compel”), and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration for Judge's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with Brief in Support, Doc. 62 (the “Motion to Reconsider”) are now before the Court. A status conference was held on December 11, 2023, at which time the motions sub judice were addressed. Based on the proffers of counsel, and for the reasons detailed herein, the motions are GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND[1]

This case arises out of Plaintiff's purchase of a 2018 McLaren 720S (the “Vehicle”) from Crosta and Partners, LLC d/b/a Royalty Exotics. In February 2020, Defendant posted the Vehicle for sale on the online auction website eBay. Plaintiff agreed to purchase it for $135,000. Shortly after receiving the Vehicle, Plaintiff took it to a McLaren dealership for inspection of suspected mechanical issues, which resulted in a repair estimate of more than $44,000. Plaintiff also discovered that the manufacturer's warranty on the Vehicle had been canceled because Defendant had used it as a rental. In April 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in state court and Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint, asserting claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraudulent inducement; (3) fraud by omission; and (4) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) and, alternatively, negligent misrepresentation.

During the course of discovery, a dispute arose concerning various Defendants' responses, or lack thereof, to Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production, as well as issues surrounding the scheduling of several depositions. In October 2023, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Compel. Doc. 59. Judge Irma Ramirez issued an order requiring the parties to meet face-to-face to confer regarding the pertinent disputes and ordered Plaintiff to file a joint submission and agreed proposed order by October 30, 2023, addressing the issues resolved at the conference. Doc. 60. When Plaintiff failed to timely file the joint submission and proposed order, on November 1, 2023, Judge Ramirez dismissed the Motion to Compel for failure to comply with a court order. Doc. 61.

*2 Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Reconsider. Doc. 62. Therein, Plaintiff avers that the parties fully resolved the outstanding discovery disputes during their conference, but Plaintiff neglected to file a proposed order and joint submission in the hope that it could obtain the discovery responses in the interim. Doc. 62 at 2-3. Plaintiff indicates in its certificate of conference that it still has not received Defendants' discovery responses. Doc. 64. Defendants did not respond to the Motion to Reconsider by Judge Ramirez's December 7, 2023, deadline. See Doc. 63.

II. ANALYSIS

The Court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981). The decision whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the Court's discretion. Colli v. S. Methodist Univ., No. 08-CV-1627, 2011 WL 3524403, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 2011) (Solis, J.).

Upon consideration, the Motion to Reconsider is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is likewise GRANTED as follows: (1) Crosta and Partners, LLC, Kirk Mendez, Vijay Goli, and all Defendants are ORDERED to appear for deposition no later than January 22, 2023; and (2) Defendants are ORDERED to provide complete responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests as set forth in the Motion to Compel no later than January 12, 2023. If Defendants fail to comply with this Order, they risk the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant Crosta and Partners, LLC, and Depositions of Vijay Goli, Kirk Mendez, Crosta and Partners, LLC (Ca), Crosta and Partners, LLC (Ak), Luxury Lease Company, and Houston Crosta and Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories to Crosta and Partners, LLC and Requests for Production and Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Crosta and Partners, LLC (Ca), Crosta and Partners, LLC (Ak), Luxury Lease Company, and Houston Crosta, Doc. 59, and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration for Judge's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with Brief in Support, Doc. 62, are GRANTED to the extent set forth herein. In all other respects, the motions are DENIED.

SO ORDERED on December 18, 2023.