Filed: Jan. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2020
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Gregory Hilz's Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Deposing Defendant Kerry Heltzel (Doc. 533). Plaintiffs initially notified all parties that they would depose Heltzel on September 23, 2019. (Doc. 533-1). But Plaintiffs rescheduled the deposition for October 1, 2019, before postponing it indefinitely. (Doc. 533-2; Doc. 533-3). On October 29, 2019, about a month after the discovery deadline
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Gregory Hilz's Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Deposing Defendant Kerry Heltzel (Doc. 533). Plaintiffs initially notified all parties that they would depose Heltzel on September 23, 2019. (Doc. 533-1). But Plaintiffs rescheduled the deposition for October 1, 2019, before postponing it indefinitely. (Doc. 533-2; Doc. 533-3). On October 29, 2019, about a month after the discovery deadline,..
More
OPINION AND ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Gregory Hilz's Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Deposing Defendant Kerry Heltzel (Doc. 533). Plaintiffs initially notified all parties that they would depose Heltzel on September 23, 2019. (Doc. 533-1). But Plaintiffs rescheduled the deposition for October 1, 2019, before postponing it indefinitely. (Doc. 533-2; Doc. 533-3). On October 29, 2019, about a month after the discovery deadline, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit by Heltzel with their response to Hilz's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 513-4). Heltzel then produced about 21 gigabytes of documents via a document sharing platform used by Plaintiffs. (Doc. 533-4; Doc. 533-5). Plaintiffs moved to dismiss their claims against Heltzel a week later. (Doc. 530). Hilz argues that the apparent settlement between Heltzel and Plaintiffs is good cause to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking Heltzel's deposition. Although counsel for Heltzel and Plaintiffs do not consent to the deposition, no party filed a response opposing Hilz's Motion.
A party moving to reopen discovery for good cause should show that it failed to timely complete discovery due to excusable neglect. EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corp., 703 F. App'x 803, 813 (11th Cir. 2017). Courts consider four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).
All four factors support reopening discovery. The Court finds no risk of prejudice to any nonmovant, and no party has raised any. Allowing Hilz to depose Heltzel will not delay trial, which the Court already postponed because of the agreement between Plaintiffs and Heltzel. (Doc. 544). Hilz's decision not to depose Heltzel before the discovery deadline was reasonable, and the Court finds no evidence of bad faith.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Gregory Hilz's Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Deposing Defendant Kerry Heltzel (Doc. 533) is GRANTED. Hilz may depose Heltzel on or before February 28, 2020.
DONE and ORDERED.
