Jackson-Bachand v. Domaine Select Wine & Spirits, LLC, 6:18-cv-00450

Plaintiff Kimberly Jackson‑Bachand sought to extend the discovery deadline a second time (from June 1 to August 15, 2019) after already receiving a two‑month enlargement.
The Court denied the requested extension for failure to show good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
Plaintiff filed an amended motion and then a motion for reconsideration, arguing the Court misapprehended facts (specifically that Plaintiff deliberately delayed depositions) and that denial would cause manifest injustice.
Defendant disagreed with parts of Plaintiff’s factual characterization but did not oppose the requested relief overall.
The Court reviewed standards for reconsideration (extraordinary remedy; limited grounds such as clear error, manifest injustice, new evidence, or intervening law) and found Plaintiff did not show misapprehension or manifest injustice but granted a limited, one‑time extension.
The Court allowed Plaintiff until August 30, 2019 to take the three disputed depositions; all other relief was denied and the order cannot be used to modify other deadlines or for summary judgment purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should reconsider its denial of Plaintiff’s discovery extension	Court misapprehended facts about deposition scheduling and denial causes manifest injustice	Disagrees with Plaintiff’s factual framing but does not oppose relief	Motion for reconsideration granted in part; limited extension to Aug 30, 2019; all other relief denied
Whether Plaintiff showed "good cause" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) for further extension	Counsel argued diligence and cooperative work; extension serves justice	Implicitly contended original reasons for denial still valid given lack of good cause	Court found Plaintiff had not shown good cause but nonetheless granted a narrowly tailored accommodation once
Whether reconsideration is appropriate based on misapprehension, clear error, or manifest injustice	Plaintiff claimed the Court mischaracterized delays as deliberate	Defendant disputed Plaintiff’s characterization of emails/facts	Court concluded no misapprehension or manifest injustice but nonetheless exercised discretion to provide limited relief
Whether discovery taken after the dispositive motions deadline may be used in summary judgment	Plaintiff likely sought use of late discovery for case resolution	Defendant did not seek to expand other deadlines	Court prohibited using discovery conducted after dispositive motions deadline for summary judgment purposes

United States ex rel. Mastej v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly)
McGuire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (motions for reconsideration require facts or law of a strongly convincing nature; clear and obvious error standard)
Florida College of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (burden on movant to show why court should reverse prior decision)
Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) (reargument cannot be used to relitigate matters or raise arguments that could have been made earlier)
Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005) (limitations on raising new arguments in reconsideration motions)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Heath Fielding Ins. Broking Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 198 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (rules governing reargument are narrowly construed and strictly applied)