NuVasive, Inc. v. Absolute Med., LLC
NuVasive, Inc. v. Absolute Med., LLC
2021 WL 7186135 (M.D. Fla. 2021)
August 27, 2021
Kelly, Gregory J., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
Defendants Soufleris and AMS filed a motion for reconsideration of a discovery order, arguing that the requested ESI had already been produced or was irrelevant. However, the court denied the motion, stating that it was not a valid basis for reconsideration and that it was not an opportunity to reargue the issue. The court's Standing Discovery Order was referenced, indicating that there may have been ESI involved in the discovery process.
Additional Decisions
NUVASIVE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
ABSOLUTE MEDICAL, LLC; Absolute Medical Systems, LLC; Greg Soufleris; Dave Hawley; and Ryan Miller, Defendant
v.
ABSOLUTE MEDICAL, LLC; Absolute Medical Systems, LLC; Greg Soufleris; Dave Hawley; and Ryan Miller, Defendant
Case No. 6:17-cv-2206-CEM-GJK
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Signed August 27, 2021
Counsel
Christopher W. Cardwell, Pro Hac Vice, Marshall Thomas McFarland, Pro Hac Vice, Mary Taylor Gallagher, Pro Hac Vice, Gullet Sanford Robinson & Martin PLLC, Nashville, TN, Diana Nicole Evans, Robert Craig Mayfield, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.Bryan E. Busch, Pro Hac Vice, Busch Slipakoff Mills & Slomka, PLLC, Atlanta, GA, Christopher Young Mills, Busch Mills & Slomka LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, Stephen D. Milbrath, Accel IP Law, PLLC, Cocoa, FL, for Defendant Absolute Medical, LLC, Dave Hawley, Absolute Medical Systems, LLC, Ryan Miller.
Bryan E. Busch, Pro Hac Vice, Busch Slipakoff Mills & Slomka, PLLC, Atlanta, GA, Christopher Young Mills, Busch Mills & Slomka LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant Greg Soufleris.
Kelly, Gregory J., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:
MOTION: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISCOVERY ORDER (Doc. No. 324)
FILED: August 26, 2021
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
On June 30, 2021, Plaintiff NuVasive, Inc. filed a motion to compel better responses to its requests for production (the “Motion to Compel”) to Defendants Greg Soufleris and Absolute Medical Systems, LLC (“AMS”). Doc. No. 302. On July 14, 2021, Soufleris and AMS filed their response to the Motion to Compel (the “Response”). Doc. No. 306. On July 16, 2021, NuVasive filed a motion to strike (the “Motion to Strike”) the Response, arguing that it fails to comply with the undersigned's Standing Discovery Order, in that it was filed more than seven days after the Motion to Compel was filed and it exceeds the word limitation. Doc. No. 307. Soufleris and AMS did not file a response to the Motion to Strike. On August 20, 2021, the Court granted the Motion to Strike and granted in part the Motion to Compel, striking the Response and directing Soufleris to produce documents responsive to Request to Produce No. 5, as limited to documents from January 1, 2017, to the present, and to Requests to Produce Nos. 1–4 and 6–8, and AMS to produce documents responsive to Request to Produce Nos. 2, 4, 5–10, 12–16, 18, 19, and 23–25 on or before August 26, 2021. Doc. No. 319 at 7-8.
On August 26, 2021, Soufleris and AMS filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order (the “Motion for Reconsideration”). Doc. No. 324. They state that the Motion for Reconsideration is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 but fail to assert which subpart of Rule 60 they are seeking relief under. Id. at 1. Rule 60(b) states the following:
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;(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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;(4) the judgment is void;(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
The Motion for Reconsideration does not set forth a basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Doc. No. 324. Rather, it is a rehash of the arguments made in Soufleris and AMS's stricken Response regarding proportionality and previously produced discovery, with an added argument that the requested discovery is irrelevant. Doc. No. 306. “[R]econsideration is not a chance to raise or reargue an issue.” Clements v. 3M Elec. Monitoring, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-776-SPC-NPM, 2021 WL 3169137, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2021).
*2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 324) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August 27, 2021.