UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-23722-ALTONAGA/DAMIAN

SARAH LOREDO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY HEARING

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Discovery Memorandum (the “Memorandum”) [ECF No. 40], filed June 20, 2023. This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga, Chief United States District Judge, pursuant to an Order of Referral of all pretrial discovery matters [ECF No. 13]. See

(b)(1)(A). THE COURT has reviewed the Memorandum and Defendant’s Response thereto [ECF No. 42], the pertinent portions of the record, and all relevant authorities and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court also heard from the parties, through their counsel, at a Discovery Hearing held on June 28, 2023. As discussed at the hearing, the Court previously entered an Order regarding the requests at issue in Plaintiff’s Memorandum and, in that Order, set time, location, and other parameters for Defendant’s obligations in responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. See ECF No. 33. As Defendant points out, Plaintiff did not appeal the Court’s Order at the time but now requests the Court modify its rulings to expand the scope of discovery. The Court interprets Plaintiff's Memorandum as a request for reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order. A motion for reconsideration may be granted based on three major grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc.,

(S.D. Fla. 2002). In other words, “[t]he only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration ‘are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.’” United States v. Dean, No. 20-11603,

, at *2 (11th Cir. Dec. 23, 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Arthur v. King,

(11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)). “A party's disagreement with the court's decision, absent a showing of manifest error, is not sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief.” Jd. (citing Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2010)). Plaintiff has not shown any basis warranting reconsideration of the Court’ prior Discovery Order. As such, and for the reasons stated on the record, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the relief requested in the Memorandum [ECF No. 40] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29" day of June, 2023.

TQ MELISSA DAMIAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga, Chief United States District Judge, Counsel of Record