Opinion ID: 3043583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motions to Supplement and Reconsider

Text: In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants cited documentary evidence and testimony, including excerpts from the depositions of D’Ambrosio and Martin. In their response, however, Plaintiffs cited to no deposition testimony. Instead, the only evidence Plaintiffs submitted in response to Defendants’ motion was a set of interrogatory responses from Martin establishing that he is deaf and primarily uses ASL to communicate, and declarations from Gervarzes, D’Ambrosio, and D’Ambrosio’s girlfriend summarily stating that (1) they requested an interpreter during their interactions with the hospital and “on many occasions [an interpreter] was not provided” and (2) they did not understand the information the hospital staff tried to convey through other 11 Case: 14-12771 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 12 of 22 means, such as written notes.5 Gervarzes and D’Ambrosio never specified what information they did not understand. Nearly a month after they filed their initial response, and after Defendants had already filed their reply, Plaintiffs sought leave to supplement the summary judgment record by designating additional deposition testimony. Even had it been timely, this tardy submission still failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiffs never offered any specific cites in their belated offering. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (requiring a party who asserts that a fact is genuinely disputed to support the assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record”). The district court denied the motion. In their subsequent motion to reconsider, Plaintiffs attached D’Ambrosio’s complete deposition as an exhibit and, only then, did they finally cite to specific portions of the testimony on which they relied. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to strike this untimely proffer of evidence, and it denied reconsideration. We review the district court’s rulings on the motion to supplement and the motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (permitting but not requiring the district court to “give an opportunity to properly support or address” a fact); Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 243 F.3d 1282, 5 They also attached to the declarations some hospital records, including D’Ambrosio’s discharge summary and selected handwritten notes that D’Ambrosio and Gervarzes had exchanged with hospital staff. 12 Case: 14-12771 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 13 of 22 1285 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The denial of a motion for reconsideration . . . is reviewed only for abuse of discretion.”). We find no abuse of discretion. See Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272, 1283 (11th Cir. 2011) (“the district court does not abuse its discretion simply because the appellate court would have handled the issue differently”). Pursuant to Rule 56, Plaintiffs were required to cite in their initial response the “particular parts” of any depositions relied upon in opposition to summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). The depositions at issue had been available to Plaintiffs for more than six months when they filed their response, and Plaintiffs were aware that Defendants had cited portions of these same depositions in support of their motion for summary judgment. Yet, Plaintiffs did not offer, and still do not offer, any reason for neglecting to provide the required citations or to respond specifically to the evidence cited by Defendants. Even when they filed their subsequent motion to supplement, Plaintiffs still failed to cite to “particular parts” of the depositions, as required by Rule 56. Plaintiffs finally provided citations to D’Ambrosio’s deposition in their motion to reconsider. However, given the unexplained delay and the previous failure to provide any specific citations, our precedent and the governing federal rules did not require the district court to consider D’Ambrosio’s deposition transcript. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) (“The court need consider only the cited 13 Case: 14-12771 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 14 of 22 materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.”); Young v. City of Palm Bay, Florida, 358 F.3d 859, 864 (11th Cir. 2004) (“the district court had a range of options which included refusing to consider untimely filings”). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Plaintiff’s motions to supplement and to reconsider.