Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

KIRKLAND v. MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC, 8:14-cv-1715-T-24TGW. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20151014881
Filed: Oct. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN C. BUCKLEW , District Judge . This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline (Dkt. 91), Defendants Lanier, McGuckin, Wright, and Lake's Response (Dkt. 93), and Defendant Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC's Response (Dkt. 95). The Court, having reviewed the motion, responses, and being otherwise advised, concludes that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. This is Plaintiffs' second motion to extend the discovery deadline. O
More

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline (Dkt. 91), Defendants Lanier, McGuckin, Wright, and Lake's Response (Dkt. 93), and Defendant Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC's Response (Dkt. 95). The Court, having reviewed the motion, responses, and being otherwise advised, concludes that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.

This is Plaintiffs' second motion to extend the discovery deadline. On August 11, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to complete discovery (Dkt. 86), and extended the discovery deadline to October 2, 2015 (Dkt. 87). Plaintiffs' instant motion requests a 30-day extension of the discovery deadline to conduct depositions of Defendant Jamie Wright; Deputy Manny Martinez; Officer Thomas Abbott; Securitas, a private security firm; and Tom Meyers, Vice President of Mining for Mosaic. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery as to four of the five requested depositions.1

The Court has determined that Plaintiffs' motion to extend the discovery deadline should be granted for the limited purpose of conducting the deposition of Defendant Jamie Wright. With regard to Plaintiffs' request to conduct the depositions of Martinez, Abbott, Securitas, and Meyers, Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to extend discovery for this purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir.1998) (finding that the good cause standard precludes modification of a scheduling order unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline (Dkt. 91) is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs' shall have until November 12, 2015 to conduct the deposition of Defendant Jamie Wright, and denied as to Plaintiffs' request to conduct depositions of Martinez, Abbott, Securitas, and Meyers.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Defendants to do not oppose Plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery for the purpose of deposing Defendant Wright.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer