ORDER

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, District Judge.

The named and opt-in plaintiffs in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action seek overtime wages that they allege the defendant, the Birmingham Board of Education, did not pay them when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Court certified an opt-in class that consists of "all classified non-exempt employees who have worked at the Board's 49 schools during the three year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit." (Doc. 54, p. 17). After an early and extended effort at mediation with a magistrate judge, the Court began efforts to determine which of the 309 named and opt-in plaintiffs could proceed with their claims against the Board.1

Toward this end, on November 30, 2016, the Court issued the following order:

(Doc. 151).2

On December 30, 2016, the Board moved for summary judgment on the FLSA claims of 248 plaintiffs. (Doc. 157). The plaintiffs filed their initial response to the summary judgment motion on February 25, 2017. (Doc. 176). On July 28, 2017, the Court granted the Board's motion with respect to five plaintiffs. (See Doc. 200) (dismissing the claims of Tammra Harris, Doris Pope Howard, Eliza Means, LaGretta Moultry, and David Rice).

Following a series of notices and orders, the Board eventually directed its motion for summary judgment toward 147 plaintiffs. The Board argued that none of the 147 plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in a workweek during the class period. (Docs. 187, 201, 207, 211, 212).3 The plaintiffs moved to strike the time records that the Board offered in support of its motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 199). The Court gave the Board an opportunity to develop its summary judgment evidence. (Docs. 208-214). The Board completed its evidentiary submissions on February 9, 2018. (Doc. 215). On February 12, 2018, the plaintiffs requested additional time to submit evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The Court granted two extensions. (Docs. 216-19). On March 8, 2019, the plaintiffs filed additional opposition to the Board's summary judgment motion. (Docs. 220-223).4

On May 29, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Board's motion as to the 142 plaintiffs whose claims were before the Court on the Board's amended summary judgment motion. (Doc. 227). The Court found that the evidence in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, created a disputed question of fact regarding the Board's payment of overtime wages to 99 of the 142 plaintiffs. (Doc. 227, pp. 3-4). For the remaining 43 plaintiffs, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to create a disputed question of fact as to overtime wages. (Doc. 227, p. 4). The Court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment as to those 43 plaintiffs. (Doc. 227, pp. 52-53).

Significantly, 17 months elapsed between the date on which the Board filed its motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiffs who the Board contends worked fewer than 40 hours in a workweek and the date on which the Court resolved the motion. And 18 months elapsed between the date on which the Court gave the plaintiffs specific instructions about the evidence they would need to submit to avoid summary judgment (Doc. 151) and the date on which the Court resolved the Board's summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs have asked the Court to amend its summary judgment order and deny the Board's motion for summary judgment on the claims of the 43 plaintiffs as to whom the Court entered judgment for the Board. (Doc. 231). Eleven of the 43 plaintiffs attached affidavits in support of the motion to amend. The plaintiffs who submitted affidavits signed the affidavits after the Court ruled on the Board's summary judgment motion. (Docs. 231-1, 231-2).5 The plaintiffs submitted executed discovery responses for plaintiff Theresa Sheppard. (Doc. 231-4). The discovery responses were verified on March 2, 2018. (Doc. 231-4, p. 4). The plaintiffs assert that they inadvertently omitted from their March 8, 2018 summary judgment submissions Ms. Sheppard's verified discovery responses. (Doc. 231, p. 3, ¶ 10) (describing the discovery responses as an affidavit "which should have been filed with the Plaintiffs' Doc. 221"). The 30 plaintiffs who did not submit evidence in support of the motion to amend request:

(Doc. 231, p. 4).

With the exception of Ms. Sheppard, the Court will not consider new evidence concerning the plaintiffs on whose claims the Court entered judgment in favor of the Board, and the Court will not amend the judgment. "In the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy and is employed sparingly." Wallace v. Holder, 846 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1248 (N.D. Ala. 2012). A motion to reconsider or amend "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise [new] argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Hasanti v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 729 Fed. Appx. 912, 913 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010)) (alterations in original omitted). "The only grounds for granting" a motion to reconsider or amend "`are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.'" Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)).

When "a party attempts to introduce previously unsubmitted evidence on a motion to reconsider, the court should not grant the motion absent some showing that the evidence was not available during the pendency of the motion." Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Rossi v. Troy State Univ., 330 F.Supp.2d 1240, 1249 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (rejecting reconsideration based on new deposition testimony because the plaintiff "failed to submit the evidence prior to the court's [ruling] and failed to show good cause why he could not have done so"). Most of the 43 plaintiffs who have asked the Court to amend the judgment in the Board's favor on their FLSA claims have offered no evidence in support of their motion. For those who have submitted new affidavits, no plaintiff has demonstrated that the information in the affidavit was not available over the 17 months that the Board's summary judgment motion was pending. (Docs. 231-1 thru 231-4). And other than Ms. Sheppard, none of the 43 plaintiffs has explained why (s)he did not comply with the Court's order describing the evidence that plaintiffs would have to submit to avoid the Board's summary judgment motion. (Doc. 151).

The record indicates that Ms. Sheppard was prepared to oppose the Board's summary judgment motion with timely evidence, but her counsel inadvertently omitted her discovery responses from the record. Under the circumstances — which include multiple opportunities that the Court gave the Board to fine tune its motion and supplement its evidence (see, e.g., Doc. 212, p. 3) — the Court grants the plaintiffs' motion as to Ms. Sheppard, accepts her summary judgment evidence, and denies the Board's summary judgment motion with respect to her FLSA claims. Given the number of plaintiffs whose FLSA overtime claims remain pending, the Board will not be prejudiced by this amendment that reinstates the overtime claim of one plaintiff.

The other 42 plaintiffs have not demonstrated manifest error in the Court's summary judgment opinion. The 42 plaintiffs argue only that they can present evidence that will save their claims. The time for that has passed. Consequently, the Court denies those 42 plaintiffs' motion to amend. The Court will not reconsider the summary judgment order in favor of the Board on the FLSA claims of those 42 plaintiffs.

DONE and ORDERED.