Order | Filed: October 02, 2026
| Entered: October 02, 2026
Grant et al v. Stratair Aviation Services, LLC
Civil Rights: Jobs | Florida Southern
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Supplemental Production (the "Motion"), ECF No. 52 . In the Motion, Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its prior ruling in which it extended Defendant's deadline to produce Court-ordered documents until October 5, 2026. See ECF No. 52 at 6, ECF No. 55 at 3 (clarifying that the reconsideration request pertains solely to the document production compelled by the Court's Order After Discovery Hearing, ECF No. 40 ). Plaintiffs oppose the continuance but request that, if the Court reconsiders further extending the production deadline, that it limit the extension to October 9, 2026. See ECF No. 54 at 12-13.
Clarifying the standard for reconsideration under Rule 54(b), which states that "an order 'that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties... may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities," the Eleventh Circuit has explained that when "a district court enters a non-final order, it should evaluate motions to reconsider that order under the standards inherent in Rule 54(b)--plenary authority 'to reconsider, revise, alter or amend' a non-final order before the entry of final judgment." Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 118 F.4th 1367, 1380 (11th Cir. 2024) (citations omitted). When deciding whether to reconsider a non-final order, such a decision rests within the sound judgment of the district court. Id. If the party seeking reconsideration can "meet a significantly higher showing for reconsideration," such as those standards that apply to Rules 59(e) or 60(b), then "the district court should not hesitate to revisit its prior ruling." Id. However, if a movant cannot satisfy one of these heightened showings, "the district court may still have room to conclude that reconsideration is appropriate." Id. With that said, "a district court typically would not abuse its discretion when rejecting a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order if the movant simply rehashed arguments already considered and rejected." Id.
Here, the Court will exercise its discretion to reconsider its ruling given the volume of documents that require manual scanning and review -- information that Defendant should have provided in the original motion but failed to provide in the first instance. Indeed, rather than vaguely inform the Court that Defendant "identified substantial volumes of responsive paper records that are not stored electronically," Defendant should have informed the Court from the outset that it located 17 boxes of documents that required manual scanning and review along with an estimate of the number of documents within each box. And the Court notes that, if Defendant intended to raise that information in a Reply, it should have realized that time was of the essence to do so, given that (1) the deadline to the produce the discovery under the Court's Order had already elapsed by then, and (2) the Court shortened Plaintiff's Response from fourteen days to two business days in an effort to expeditiously provide the Parties with necessary guidance regarding the deadlines. Should Defendant proceed with a wait-and-see approach in the future in which Defendant fails to provide the pertinent information at the outset and then provides it at the reconsideration level, the Court will not hesitate to deny reconsideration. In this instance, the Court is exercising that discretion because the volume of paper documents to be scanned and manually reviewed is extensive, the scanning is still in process as of this afternoon, see ECF No. 55 at 6, the current extended deadline is only one business day away, and the deposition of Defendant's Head of Human Resources is no longer scheduled for October 6, 2026, eliminating that potential prejudice to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion, ECF N... (truncated)