United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff,
HOLLAND ACQUISITIONS, INC., d/b/a HOLLAND SERVICES, a Corporation; and BRYAN GAUDIN, Individually, and as a Corporate Officer of HOLLAND ACQUISITIONS, INC., d/b/a HOLLAND SERVICES, Defendants.
R. Hornak United States District Judge.
NOW, this 11th day of May, 2018, it is hereby ORDERED that
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 135, is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED to the extent that this
Court's Memorandum Order of October 18, 2017, ECF No. 133
("October 18 Order"), is amended to strike the
following language,  appearing as the last sentence of
A date will be set falling at least ninety (90) days prior to
the close of fact discovery (to be set by further Order of
the Court) for the Plaintiff to make its designation of its
trial/summary judgment witnesses, representative claimants,
and/or exhibits in order to allow such disclosures.
all other respects, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
The remainder of the October 18 Order remains the Order of
further Ordered that a status conference will be set by
further Order approaching the close of discovery where the
Court can appropriately schedule when and how witness
disclosures will occur and whether Defendants will be
entitled to re-open discovery as to such
matters. S~\ Mark R. Hornak United States
District Judge cc: all counsel of record
 "The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is 'to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.' A proper
Rule 59(e) motion therefore must rely on one of three
grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct
clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice."
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.
2010) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros,
176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1998)).
 The Court concludes that requiring
Plaintiff to disclose witnesses 90 days prior to the close of
discovery is error in light of an intervening change in the
law. In a separate case, this Court ordered disclosure of
documents asserted to be protected by the
"Informant's Privilege" slightly more than two
months prior to the close of discovery. Acosta v. Heart
II Heart, LLC, No. 17-cv-1242, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
34604 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2018) (ordering disclosure by March
12, 2018); Case Management Order, Acosta v. Heart II
Heart, LLC, No. 17-cv-1242 (W.D Pa. Jan. 16, 2018)
(ordering close of discovery for May 29, 2018). Our Court of
Appeals recently ruled by Order that such disclosure was
premature. In re Acosta, No. 18-1566 (3d Cir. Mar.
27, 2018). The Court of Appeals did not articulate
specifically when the appropriate time for disclosure should
be, only that two (2) months prior to the close of discovery
was not. In light of the reality that the deadline for
disclosure set in this case was sooner than the deadline in
Heart II Heart, this Court concludes the deadline in
this case must be changed.
 In order to properly balance the
privilege with the Defendants' right to prepare a defense
for trial, the Court will wait to make such a decision
involving the disclosures involved here until the parties are
closer to completing their fact discovery and the Court has a
better preview of coming attractions in this lawsuit. See
Brock v. Dial America Mktg., 7nc, No. 81-4020, 1986 WL
28913 (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 1986). In consideration of the briefs
submitted by the parties, ECF Nos. 136 and 146, and oral
argument held on the matter, the Court concludes the best
course of action for now is a "one-step-at-a-time"
approach. The principle purpose of the October 18 Order was
to resolve the dispute of whether Defendants' request for
certain discovery was barred by the Informant's Privilege
and whether the Defendants could overcome their burden to
show that their need for the information at that
time was essential to a fair determination of this case.
See Oct. 18 Order, ECF No. 133. Thus, this Order is
consistent with the Court's ruling that the Defendants
did not meet their burden at that point and that the Motion
to Compel be denied. The Court cannot predict the exact
moment that the Defendants may meet their burden, so no such
"disclosure deadline" will be set at this time.
But, the Court can also confirm its assessment made at oral
argument on the underlying motions-the Court does not plan on
permitting only "eleventh hour" unredacted witness