Trasco Wellness, LLC v. Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Medicine, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

TRASCO WELLNESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:23-cv-2536-WFJ-LSG TAMPA BAY SPINE & SPORTS MEDICINE, LLC, TAMPA BAY SPINE AND SPORT, LLC and ERIC J. NYE,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

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 1 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