This case involves plaintiffs who were security guards employed by the defendants to protect construction sites after Hurricane Ian.  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages. During discovery, the plaintiffs requested documents from the defendant, Florida Structural Group (FSG), to better understand the nature of the services FSG provided. FSG objected to these requests, prompting the plaintiffs to file a motion to compel. Since FSG did not respond to this motion, it was deemed to have abandoned its objections, and the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, ordering FSG to produce the documents.

FSG then sought relief from the court’s order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that its failure to respond to the motion was due to a calendaring error, which it characterized as excusable neglect. However, the court found that Rule 60 was not the correct procedure for FSG’s request, as Rule 60 applies only to final judgments and orders, not to non-final discovery orders like the one in this case. The court also clarified that it has inherent authority to reconsider non-final orders, but this should only occur in extraordinary circumstances.

Reconsideration of a non-final order is only proper if there has been an intervening change in law, new evidence, or if the order contains clear legal error that needs correction to prevent manifest injustice. FSG did not claim any change in the law or new facts and did not demonstrate any legal error. Instead, FSG argued that it missed responding to the discovery motion because of a calendaring mistake, but the court noted that a negligent failure to respond does not typically constitute excusable neglect.

The court also emphasized that discovery had closed, and granting FSG’s request for reconsideration would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. Since FSG’s failure to respond was within its control and caused an impermissible delay, the court found no reason to revisit its decision. The court highlighted that reconsideration of orders should not be used as a way to allow parties to revisit decisions at their convenience.

Ultimately, the court denied FSG’s motion for relief from the order, reinforcing that motions for reconsideration should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The decision emphasized that courts should maintain a steady progression in litigation, avoiding unnecessary delays caused by revisiting prior rulings.

If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Nicole Gill, Chair, Managing Member CODISCOVR. With almost a decade of experience, she manages complex and high-profile eDiscovery projects and routinely navigates data and privacy protection laws across many domestic and foreign jurisdictions.