ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, Magistate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendants Tom Barberino and Louise Barberino's ("Defendants") Motion to Reschedule Preliminary Pretrial Conference (Doc. 27) filed on December 13, 2016. Defendants seek to reschedule a Preliminary Pretrial Conference ("PPTC") scheduled at 10:00 a.m. on December 14, 2016. Docs. 24, 27.

On September 23, 2016, the Court designated this case as a Track Two case and ordered the parties to meet within thirty (30) days after service of the Complaint (Doc. 2) upon any defendant, or the first appearance of any defendant, to prepare a Case Management Report ("CMR"). Doc. 4 at 2. The Court also scheduled a PPTC at 10:45 a.m. on November 16, 2016. Doc. 5. The Court cancelled the first PPTC on November 15, 2016 and scheduled a second PPTC at 10:00 a.m. on December 14, 2016 because the parties did not file a Case Management Report ("CMR") before the first PPTC. Docs. 19, 24.

After the Court cancelled the first PPTC, on November 17, 2016, the parties filed the joint motion for extension of time to file a CMR, and Defendants explained in a separate response that Defendants' counsel suffered an internet outage and was unable to file the motion for extension until then. Docs. 21, 22. The parties eventually filed a CMR on December 7, 2016. Doc. 26. On December 13, 2016, one day before the second PPTC, Defendants filed the present motion seeking to reschedule the PPTC, alleging that their counsel has a scheduling conflict because he inadvertently did not place this conference on his calendar. Doc. 27.

Under Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(D), the Court either schedules a PPTC or enter a Case Management and Scheduling Order upon receipt of the parties' CMR. M.D. Fla. R. 3.05(c)(2)(D). Rule 16(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the Court to issue the scheduling order "within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared" unless the Court finds good cause for delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2). "This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, the Court finds good cause because the parties' delay is not caused by their lack of diligence in prosecuting this case but by their inadvertent mistakes. The parties, however, should be aware that this is the second time that counsel's inadvertent mistakes caused the Court to cancel the PPTC on the eve of the PPTC.

Furthermore, the present motion does not confirm that Defendants have conferred with the opposing counsel regarding the requested relief. Doc. 17. Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that each motion filed in a civil case, with certain enumerated exceptions not at issue here, contain a statement "stating whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion," and further provides that a statement to the effect that counsel for the moving party attempted to confer with counsel for the opposing party but counsel was unavailable is "insufficient to satisfy the parties' obligation to confer." M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g).

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Defendants Tom Barberino and Louise Barberino's Motion to Reschedule Preliminary Pretrial Conference (Doc. 27) is GRANTED.

2. A Preliminary Pretrial Conference scheduled on December 14, 2016 is cancelled. An Order setting a new Preliminary Pretrial Conference will be issued separately.

DONE and ORDERED.