Shultz v. Mahalati

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

MATTHEW SHULTZ,

Plaintiff,

Case No. vs. 6:25-cv-1478-CEM-RMN

FATEMEH MAHALATI,

Defendant.

ORDER 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. 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.” , 90 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1256 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (citing , 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. yd sry ROBERT M. NORWAY United States Magistrate Judge Copies to:

Matthew Gary Shultz 8245 Curry Ford Road Orlando, Florida 32822

Counsel of Record

2.