Filed: Aug. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This case comes before the Court on Defendant Wahoo Fitness, LLC's Amended Motion to Extend Dates in Case Management Order ("CMSO") (Doc. 42). Defendant seeks a 120 day extension of all pretrial dates in the CMSO ( Id., 19). Plaintiff has agreed to the relief requested in the motion ( Id., at 4). The CMSO can only be modified "upon a showing of good cause." FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b). "This good cause standard precludes modification unless the sche
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This case comes before the Court on Defendant Wahoo Fitness, LLC's Amended Motion to Extend Dates in Case Management Order ("CMSO") (Doc. 42). Defendant seeks a 120 day extension of all pretrial dates in the CMSO ( Id., 19). Plaintiff has agreed to the relief requested in the motion ( Id., at 4). The CMSO can only be modified "upon a showing of good cause." FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b). "This good cause standard precludes modification unless the sched..
More
ORDER
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Defendant Wahoo Fitness, LLC's Amended Motion to Extend Dates in Case Management Order ("CMSO") (Doc. 42). Defendant seeks a 120 day extension of all pretrial dates in the CMSO (Id., ¶ 19). Plaintiff has agreed to the relief requested in the motion (Id., at 4).
The CMSO can only be modified "upon a showing of good cause." FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b). "This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot `be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 16 advisory committee note). "`If [a] party was not diligent, the [good cause] inquiry should end.'" Id. (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court is satisfied that Defendant has shown good cause to modify the CMSO to some extent. But, the 120 days requested by Defendant is not realistic without continuing the trial date, which has not been requested.
The CMSO provides that: "The Court cannot extend a dispositive motion deadline to the eve of trial. In light of the district court's heavy felony trial calendar, at least 3 ½ months are required before trial to receive memoranda in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, and to research and resolve the dispositive motion sufficiently in advance of trial." (Doc. 21 at 4). The case is set for trial during the term beginning May 1, 2017 (Id., at 2). The current deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert motions is December 1, 2016 (Id., at 1). The Court needs the time currently allotted to rule on dispositive motions, and the undersigned is not persuaded that manifest injustice will result if the deadline for filing dispositive motions is not extended. Some, but not all, of the other deadlines can be extended to give the parties some relief. After due consideration, the motion is GRANTED in part, and the CMSO is modified as follows:
Disclosure of Expert Reports by Plaintiff: December 30, 2016
Disclosure of Expert Reports by Defendant: January 31, 2017
Discovery Deadline: February 28, 2017
Deadline to File Daubert Motions: February 28, 2017
In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. Discovery conducted after the dispositive motions deadline may not be used for summary judgment purposes. This Order may not be cited as grounds to extend another deadline in the CMSO. Copies furnished to Counsel of Record
DONE and ORDERED.
