Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF IN RE 

SKANSKA USA CIVIL 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS 

5531 PRAYING FOR 

EXONERATION FROM OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H)

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:20-CV-05980-LC/HTC

ORDER ON UNITED STATES’ 

ORAL MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the United States’ oral motion for protective 

order as to Skanska’s notices of depositions served on fifteen (15) Navy witnesses

and six (6) United States Coast Guard witnesses. Upon consideration, the motion for 

protective order is GRANTED.

The United States argues the notices of deposition violate this Court’s 

Discovery Order #2, ECF Doc. 1192. In Discovery Order # 2, this Court determined 

Skanska was not entitled to discovery on what the Claimants, including the United 

States Navy, knew or did to prepare for Hurricane Sally because such information is 

not relevant to the limitations trial. ECF Doc. 1192. Skanska filed an objection to 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1226 Filed 07/30/21 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

2

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

that order, ECF Doc. 1201, and Senior District Judge Collier overruled the objection, 

finding the order was neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous, ECF Doc. 1205. 

As an initial matter, and contrary to the intimation Skanska makes in its 

response, ECF Doc. 1215, this Court did not invite Skanska to file a motion to 

reconsider Discovery Order #2. Instead, what the Court stated to Skanska at the July 

21, 2021 status conference, in no uncertain terms, was that Skanska should not “issue 

discovery in contravention of an order before getting that order vacated.” ECF Doc. 

1215-1 at 95. Consistent therewith, the Court ordered Skanska to “show cause why 

the depositions sought do not contravene either the letter or the spirit of the Court’s 

Discovery Order #2.” ECF Doc. 1192.

Skanska has not done that. Rather, in its response to the show cause order, 

Skanska seeks to have the Court reconsider Discovery Order #2, arguing the Court’s 

order was “contrary to established law,” an argument already rejected by Judge 

Collier. ECF Doc. 1215 at 2. Regardless, the grant or denial of a motion to reconsider 

is left to the discretion of the trial court. Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 

1023–24 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc). Such a motion may not be used as a vehicle to 

inject new arguments into the underlying motion, or to submit evidence previously 

available but not properly presented on the underlying motion. Mays v. United States 

Postal Service, 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997). Nor may it be used to “relitigate 

old matters.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1226 Filed 07/30/21 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

3

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

(internal quotes omitted). Instead, “[a] motion to reconsider is only available when 

a party presents the court with evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, 

the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest 

injustice.” Gipson v. Mattox, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1185 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (internal 

quotes omitted). 

As the United States argues in its reply, ECF Doc. 1218, Skanska’s motion to 

reconsider simply rehashes the same arguments it previously raised as well as those 

raised in the objection. Skanska has not presented any new evidence or a change in 

controlling law. Moreover, the fact that Skanska is now willing to limit its initial 

request for twenty-one (21) witnesses to two (2) Navy witnesses does not alter the 

Court’s analysis. Rather, it only highlights the unreasonableness and breadth of 

Skanska’s initial request.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Navy’s oral motion for protective order is GRANTED.

2. Skanska’s motion to reconsider (ECF Doc. 1215) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of July, 2021.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1226 Filed 07/30/21 Page 3 of 3