TRASCO WELLNESS, LLC
v.
TAMPA BAY SPINE & SPORTS MEDICINE, LLC
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.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration and additional discovery.
Defendants sought reconsideration of orders denying their motions to add a counterclaim and permit expert/financial discovery. The magistrate judge re…
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 Financial Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the orders denying Defendants' motions to add a counterclaim or recognize a prior one and to permit expert and financial discovery (Dkt. 70), which the United States Magistrate Judge recommends be denied. Dkt. 73. Defendants filed objections. Dkt. 88.
When a party makes timely and specific objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district judge shall conduct a de novo review of the portions of the record to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Jeffrey S. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F. 2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). After such independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783-84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing published opinion).
The Magistrate Judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned analysis, found that under the proper legal standard for reconsideration, Defendants raised no new argument as to the allowance of further expert disclosures and financial discovery, as well as failed to cite persuasive authority in the Eleventh Circuit. Dkt. 73. Defendants object and request this Court follow a 2021 ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 88. This Court is bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent, which is set forth in detail in the Magistrate Judge's report. Having conducted a de novo and independent review of the file, and for the sound reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, the Court rules as follows:
1. Defendants' objections (Dkt. 88) are overruled.
2. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 73) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
3. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, to Clarify Status of Pleadings, and Permit Additional Discovery (Dkt. 70) is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on June 20, 2025.
s/William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ga. Power Co. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)