Medline Industries Inc v. Stryker Sustainability Solutions Inc, No. 2:2019cv01415 - Document 54 (N.D. Ala. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The court considered Defendant's position the first time it was raised, and as stated in the previous order both parties may seek leave to amend or supplement their expert disclosures following the resolution of De fendant's motion to bar Plaintiff from introducing evidence of damages. Doc. 52 at 1. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 53 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gray M Borden on 10/9/2020. (KEK)

Download PDF

Medline Industries Inc v. Stryker Sustainability Solutions Inc Doc. 54 FILED 2020 Oct-09 PM 01:45 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. STRYKER SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:19-cv-1415-GMB MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. 53. Defendant asks the court to reconsider its order granting in part Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 50). Upon consideration of Defendant’s motion, the applicable law, and the record as a whole, the court finds that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 53) is due to be denied. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract in this court on August 28, 2019. Doc. 1. The parties then engaged in discovery for nearly one year. See Doc. 17 at 2. On September 29, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Bar Plaintiff from Presenting Evidence of Damages. Doc. 47. The motion remains pending and the parties’ briefs are not yet due to be filed. Doc. 48. After filing the motion, Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery seeking to extend the deadlines for its Dockets.Justia.com expert disclosures, all discovery, and the filing of dispositive motions into December 2020 and January 2021. Doc. 50 at 3. Plaintiff responded in opposition to that motion. Doc. 51. On October 8, 2020, this court entered an order granting in part Defendant’s motion for extension. Doc 52. The order extended the deadline for Defendant’s expert disclosure to October 16, discovery to November 18, and dispositive motions to December 18. Doc. 52 at 1. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration asks the court for yet another extension of its deadline for expert disclosures. Doc. 53 at 2. II. DISCUSSION A motion to reconsider should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. It is not an avenue for relitigating old matters. Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009). And it is not a proper vehicle for advancing new legal theories or presenting previously available evidence. Mays v. United States Postal Service, 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997). In fact, this narrow remedy “is only available when a party presents the court with evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Summit Med. Ctr. of Ala., Inc. v. Riley, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (citing Groover v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d. 1236, 1256 (M.D. Ala. 2000)). “In the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration . . . is employed 2 sparingly.” Gougler v. Sirius Prod., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005). “[L]itigants should not use motions to reconsider as a knee-jerk reaction to an adverse ruling.” Rueter v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1268 (N.D. Ala. 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “[A] motion for reconsideration is not an appeal, and thus it is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought through.” Gold Cross EMS, Inc. v. Children’s Hosp. of Ala., 108 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1379 (S.D. Ga. 2015) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Defendant has not provided the court with any basis for reconsidering its previous order. The motion for reconsideration puts forth no new evidence or changes in controlling law. The motion does not allege that the court’s previous order constitutes clear error or resulted in manifest injustice. Instead, the motion reiterates the same concerns Defendant presented in the original motion for an extension. Compare Doc. 50 at 3, with Doc. 53 at 2. The court considered Defendant’s position the first time it was raised, and as stated in the previous order both parties may seek leave to amend or supplement their expert disclosures following the resolution of Defendant’s motion to bar Plaintiff from introducing evidence of damages. Doc. 52 at 1. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 53) is DENIED. 3 DONE and ORDERED on October 9, 2020. _________________________________ GRAY M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.