Filed: May 19, 2017
Latest Update: May 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Trial (Doc. 23) filed on May 18, 2017. The parties seek to extend the Court-ordered deadlines by six (6) months because Defendant filed extensive counter-claims against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff recently hired new counsel. Doc. 23 at 2-3. The parties also seek an additional three days for trial. Id. at 3. On
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Trial (Doc. 23) filed on May 18, 2017. The parties seek to extend the Court-ordered deadlines by six (6) months because Defendant filed extensive counter-claims against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff recently hired new counsel. Doc. 23 at 2-3. The parties also seek an additional three days for trial. Id. at 3. On ..
More
ORDER
CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Trial (Doc. 23) filed on May 18, 2017. The parties seek to extend the Court-ordered deadlines by six (6) months because Defendant filed extensive counter-claims against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff recently hired new counsel. Doc. 23 at 2-3. The parties also seek an additional three days for trial. Id. at 3.
On March 23, 2017, Senior United States District Judge John E. Steele entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order ("CMSO") setting the deadlines to disclose expert reports for the parties to August 1, 2017 and for rebuttal to August 15, 2017, the discovery deadline to September 22, 2017, the mediation deadline to October 6, 2017, the deadline for dispositive motions to October 13, 2017, and a trial term of March 5, 2018. Doc. 15 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 based upon the parties' representations. Doc. 23. Furthermore, this is the first extension of the CMSO deadlines requested by the parties. Id. Given the length of the extension, however, the Court expects the parties to exercise their diligence in meeting the extended deadlines. The parties point out that the case as rescheduled still will be on track to be completed within two (2) years of the initial filing, as contemplated under Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(E). Id. at 3. 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 Extend Pretrial Deadlines and to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Trial (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.
2. An amended case management and scheduling order will be issued under separate cover.
DONE and ORDERED.
