Murray v. Taylor

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

STEPHEN LYNCH MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-6-CEM-LHP

JANELLE IRWIN TAYLOR, PETER D. SCHORSCH and EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES MEDIA, LLC,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY SELECTIVELY AS NECESSARY TO AVOID PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 30) FILED: May 22, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. The Court does not require the benefit of a response to rule on the motion. Not only does this motion fail to comply with Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), but discovery in this case has been stayed. Doc. No. 26. To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order staying discovery, that request is DENIED. □□□□□□□□□□□ motion does not address any of the legal requirements for reconsideration nor provide any legal argument in support of that relief. See Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (“Motions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), aff'd sub nom. Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 215 F. App’x 879 (11th Cir. 2007)). See also Doc. No. 28. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 22, 2024.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-2-