HALAOUI v. RENAISSANCE HOTEL OPERATING COMPANY, 6:13-cv-1839-Orl-36TBS. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140807c01
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge. This case comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Expert Report (Doc. 29). The motion is due to be denied. August 1, 2014 was the deadline for Defendant to make its expert witness disclosure. That day, Defendant filed the instant motion requesting an extension to September 2, 2014. Defendant has not explained why it waited until the day its disclosure was due to seek an extension of time. Defendant's M.D. Fla. Rule
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge. This case comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Expert Report (Doc. 29). The motion is due to be denied. August 1, 2014 was the deadline for Defendant to make its expert witness disclosure. That day, Defendant filed the instant motion requesting an extension to September 2, 2014. Defendant has not explained why it waited until the day its disclosure was due to seek an extension of time. Defendant's M.D. Fla. Rule 3..
More
ORDER
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Expert Report (Doc. 29). The motion is due to be denied. August 1, 2014 was the deadline for Defendant to make its expert witness disclosure. That day, Defendant filed the instant motion requesting an extension to September 2, 2014. Defendant has not explained why it waited until the day its disclosure was due to seek an extension of time. Defendant's M.D. Fla. Rule 3.01(g) certificate states that its lawyer attempted to confer with Plaintiff's lawyer who responded that he was unavailable to confer prior to the disclosure deadline but that he would provide his client's position as promptly as possible. Defendant said it would amend its certificate upon receipt of Plaintiff's response. The Court delayed action on Defendant's motion until now, to see whether Defendant would update its Rule 3.01(g) certificate. The certificate has not been updated. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is DENIED because it has not complied with Rule 3.01(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
