SHULTZ
v.
MAHALATI
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this discovery dispute, the district court denied a plaintiff's motion to reconsider a prior order denying a motion to seal documents. The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration and found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error.
The motion for reconsideration was denied because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either an intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence that was not previously available despite due diligence, or clear error or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration.
[1] Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.
[2] Reconsideration is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates an intervening change in the law, new evidence not previously available, or a clear error of law.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly”
Establishes the strict standard applicable to motions for reconsideration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal on August 15, 2025. A prior motion to seal had been denied by the court. The plaintiff's second motion seeks reco…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Reconsideration Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court without oral argument on a Motion to Seal (Dkt. 13) filed by the Plaintiff on August 15, 2025. The Motion has been referred to a magistrate judge for adjudication.
The Court denied a prior motion to seal filed by the Plaintiff. See Dkt. 10. The Motion is deemed to seek reconsideration of that decision. The standard applied to a request for reconsideration is strict. This is so because “reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly." Groover v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1256 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (citing Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, 153 F.R.D. 689 (M.D. Fla. 1994)). Reconsideration is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates that (1) there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) new evidence has been discovered which was not previously
available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) the court made a clear error of law. Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694.
The Motion does not raise an intervening change in law, provide new evidence that was not available at the time the Court rendered its earlier decision, or demonstrate the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. The Plaintiff merely requests the same relief previously denied by this Court. But “mere disagreement with the Court's conclusions is not enough.” Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., 242 F.R.D. 671, 684 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citation omitted). The Motion is thus due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (Dkt. 13) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August 22, 2025.
ROBERT M. NORWAY United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to: Matthew Gary Shultz 8245 Curry Ford Road Orlando, Florida 32822 Counsel of Record
- 2 -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Mahendra Pratap Gupta, 363 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2004)…01). . The defense cites two post-Carlisle district court cases in the Eleventh Circuit that supposedly allowed reconsideration of timely motions. These cases are neither controlling, nor on point. The first, Groover v. Michelin N. Amer., Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (M.D.Ala.2000), was not a criminal case and did not involve Rule 29 or 33, but rather concerned the adjudication of a motion for summary judgment. The other case, United States v. Ferguson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (S.D.Fla.2000), addressed a Sixth A…
Authorities Cited
- Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 135 F.R.D. 129 (M.D. Fla. 1994)