ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the following:

On May 13, 2015, the parties to this product liability personal injury action filed a "Stipulated [First] Request to Extend Pretrial Deadlines" due to "unexpected delays" in discovery that purportedly prevented Plaintiffs from disclosing their expert reports by May 5, 2015, as required by the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order ("CMSO"). (Doc. 113; see also Doc. 95, p. 1.) The parties sought extensions of their discovery deadlines, dispositive motion deadlines, pretrial requirement deadlines, and trial term. (Doc. 113.) The Court denied the joint request, explaining that "motions to extend the dispositive deadline or to continue the trial are generally denied" and that "[f]ailure to complete discovery within the time established by [the CMSO] shall not constitute cause for continuance." (Doc. 114; see also Doc. 95, p. 5.)

Having been dealt a setback by virtue of their insouciance to the Court's prior admonitions, Plaintiffs now move the Court to reconsider its May 20, 2015 Order denying the joint request to extend deadlines (Doc. 113).1 (Doc. 117.) Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs do not cite any authority for such a request. (Id.) Perhaps this is because reconsideration typically requires: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) demonstrated clear error or manifest injustice; or (3) an intervening change in the controlling law. Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002). None of the aforementioned grounds are present in this case, and reconsideration is not warranted where a party seeks to reargue the same points with more fervor; the use of bold-face font; or more-fully fleshed out argument that the Court previously found unpersuasive.

Additionally, Plaintiffs' Motion includes a modified request for an extension of time to disclose expert reports, complete discovery, and file dispositive motions. (Doc. 117.) For this, a review of the Court's CMSO may be helpful:

(Doc. 95, p. 5 (emphasis added).)

Despite the language of the CMSO, which has been in place since August 18, 2014, Plaintiffs raise communication problems, trial commitments, and alleged discovery abuses in an effort to persuade the Court that they are not the author of their own misfortune and that their noncompliance should be overlooked or excused. To show the reasonableness of this request, they repeatedly point out (in bold font) that they only seek an 87-day extension of the expert disclosure date (which had already expired at the time the initial joint request for extension of deadlines was filed) and a 44-day extension of the discovery deadlines, together with a 44-day extension of the dispositive motions deadline. (Doc. 117, pp. 3, 6, 15, 19, 20-21.) The end result would require the Court to consider and resolve potentially complex dispositive motions in a compressed time frame in order to ensure that the case is ready to proceed to the pretrial conference with those rulings in hand. This brings to mind an old saying: "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine."

That there is blame to be shared for the dilatory way this case has been litigated among the parties is not subject to much contest. That said, in this Court's experience, it is rare to see defendants eager to rush to jury selection and trial. More commonly, their response to calendar call is akin to the untrained dog's call to heel. In keeping with that spirit, Defendants apparently do not oppose a delay so long as they do not have to "go first" on expert disclosures (see Doc. 113 (joining Plaintiffs for the first deadline extension request); Doc. 116 (explaining that Yamaha USA does not want to have to disclose their experts and provide reports "without the benefit of knowing exactly what Plaintiffs' claims are or even what claims [Defendants] are defending against." They can hardly claim prejudice if the Court grants Plaintiff's requested extension, however undeserved it may be.2

Therefore, in an effort to resolve this case on its merits and to avoid prejudice to Plaintiffs, lest they be lost in the kerfuffle, the Court will extend by grace and not for cause the dates for the disclosure of the parties' experts and discovery of their opinions. Resolution of the parties pending discovery dispute shall not be considered grounds for any further modification of the schedule.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.'s Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to File Expert Disclosures and Reports (Doc. 124) and Defendant, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.'s Motion to Strike and Disqualify Plaintiffs' Experts (Doc. 116) are due to be denied as moot.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.