Filed: Jan. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2017
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Enlarge Pretrial Deadlines and Trial Period (Doc. 47) filed on January 11, 2017. On January 7, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Complaint against Defendants. Doc. 1. The parties seek to extend the Court-ordered deadlines by forty-five (45) days because they have not been able to schedule depositions. Doc. 47 at 2. Furthermore, the parties state that Plaintiff's c
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Enlarge Pretrial Deadlines and Trial Period (Doc. 47) filed on January 11, 2017. On January 7, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Complaint against Defendants. Doc. 1. The parties seek to extend the Court-ordered deadlines by forty-five (45) days because they have not been able to schedule depositions. Doc. 47 at 2. Furthermore, the parties state that Plaintiff's co..
More
ORDER
CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Enlarge Pretrial Deadlines and Trial Period (Doc. 47) filed on January 11, 2017. On January 7, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Complaint against Defendants. Doc. 1. The parties seek to extend the Court-ordered deadlines by forty-five (45) days because they have not been able to schedule depositions. Doc. 47 at 2. Furthermore, the parties state that Plaintiff's counsel will undergo surgery at the end of January. Id.
On March 14, 2016, Senior United States District Judge John E. Steele entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order ("CMSO") setting the deadlines for Plaintiff's disclosure of expert reports to February 1, 2017 and Defendant's disclosure of expert reports to March 1, 2017, the discovery deadline to March 31, 2017, the mediation deadline to April 14, 2017, the deadline for dispositive motions to May 1, 2017, and a trial term of August 21, 2017. Doc. 36 at 1-2.
District courts have broad discretion when managing their cases in order to ensure that the cases move to a timely and orderly conclusion. Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). Rule 16 requires a showing of good cause for modification of a court's scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension because this is the first extension of the CMSO deadlines requested by the parties, and the motion is unopposed. The Court, however, reminds the parties that this matter has been pending since January 7, 2016. Doc. 1. Given the length of time that this case has been pending, the Court expects the parties to exercise their diligence in meeting the extended deadlines. The parties' continued diligence and coordination will help avoid the parties' future need to file additional motions to extend the deadlines.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Joint Motion to Enlarge Pretrial Deadlines and Trial Period (Doc. 47) is GRANTED.
2. An amended case management and scheduling order will be issued under separate cover.
DONE and ORDERED.
