MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; [PROPOSED] AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

(First Request)

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Defendant Vision Airlines, Inc. ("VAI"), by and through its attorneys of record, hereby move the Court to extend deadlines for the disclosure of experts, rebuttal experts, and discovery cut-off as detailed herein. This the first request for extension of time to take discovery.

I. Discovery Completed and Pending

The parties timely served their Initial Disclosures.

On September 14, 2017, Plaintiffs propounded Interrogatories on Defendants William Acor, RBY, Inc., Vision Airlines, Inc., and Vision Aviation Holdings, Inc., and also, Requests for Production on the same Defendants.

In response, on November 6, 2017, Defendants William Acor, RBY, Inc., Vision Airlines, Inc., and Vision Aviation Holdings, Inc. provided their Interrogatory Responses and production of documents.

On November 7, 2017, Plaintiffs served their First Supplement to Initial Disclosures.

Defendant is preparing and will propound written Interrogatories and Requests for Production to each Plaintiff on or before November 30, 2017.

It is anticipated that Plaintiff will notice and take the deposition of the 30(b)(6) designee for each of the named entity Defendants, and that upon Defendants' receipt of Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' pending written discovery, a deposition will be set for Plaintiff Halley and the 30(b)(6) designee for Flagship Airlines, Inc. Deposition subpoenas may issue to any expert or rebuttal expert designated by the parties. Also, it may be necessary to subpoena documents from Havana Air, operating from Miami, Florida.

II. Basis for Extension

VAI has been seeking to retain an expert on Federal Aviation Agency and Department of Transportation regulations and their application to the claims and defenses in the action. The complex aviation regulations strictly mandate what may and may not be done in the carrying of air passengers by U.S. airlines or airlines operating in the U.S. VAI asserts that Plaintiffs' lack of compliance with these regulations is the cause of the fact pattern within the action, and a complete defense to Plaintiffs' Complaint. See e.g. Defendant Vision Airline, Inc.'s and Vision Aviation Holdings Inc.'s Answer and Counterclaims (Dkt 12), at pp. 9-11, Affirmative Defenses 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 35, 36, 48, 49, 50, and 51; see also Counterclaims, at ¶¶ 9, 10, and 11. The testimony is intended to assist the Court in understanding the complex regulatory limitations placed upon the parties extraneous to, but contemplated (and mandatory) within, the contractual structures alleged and otherwise as understood and applied in this highly regulated industry.

Good cause exists for the brief extension requested. VAI has encountered several false starts in the process of securing an expert to opine on the governing regulations. Initially, VAI's principals were overseas, often in remote areas, for two months (late August through the majority of October) coordinating new contracts for 2018, and the groundwork that VAI was able to lay during that absentee period eroded in late October. Active government employees with the FAA and/or DOT, knowledgeable of the regulations and known to VAI had been contacted, and were interested and willing, but upon their further up-channel investigation were ultimately unable to obtain the necessary permissions from their agencies to perform expert services in the action. To counter that problem, VAI quickly moved into discussions with former government employees, and had numerous discussions with a former Department of Transportation employee, but again upon up-channel investigation, he similarly was forced to forgo retention upon his new private employer's objection to his participation in the action. This start/stop process does not reflect a lack of diligence, but rather, a limited pool of potential and available experts. VAI has since recently located an aviation attorney with 30+ years of experience applying the FAA/DOT regulations. He is willing to assist, has been retained, and has been provided with relevant documents for review, but states that he cannot complete a report within the existing timelines. Further, due to the pending holidays, he states that he will require another three weeks to complete his review of documents and provide his report.

The parties' counsel discussed the situation and proposed amendments. Plaintiffs' counsel reported back on November 21, 2017 that Plaintiffs had declined to stipulate.

III. Proposed Plan and Discovery Order

This brief extension of timelines is not interposed for the purpose of delay. VAI proposes the following amendments to the Court's June 22, 2017 Scheduling Order:

IV. Additional Considerations.

Beyond the foregoing amendments, VAI proposes that the Scheduling Order (Dkt 24) shall remain in effect. The Defendant parties do not request a conference with this Court before the entry of an Amended Scheduling Order.

The motion is granted as unopposed pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.