American Registry, LLC v. Hanaw et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting in part 50 Agreed Motion for Enlargement of Case Management Deadlines and Supporting Memorandum. All deadlines set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order shall be extended for a period of ninety (90) days. The Court will issue a separate Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order establishing the new deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 4/15/2014. (ALB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
AMERICAN REGISTRY, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-352-FtM-29CM

YONAH HANAW, MICHAEL
LEVY, SHOWMARK HOLDINGS,
LLC and SHOWMARK MEDIA,
LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’ Agreed Motion for Enlargement of Case
Management Deadlines and Supporting Memorandum (“Motion”) (Doc. 50), filed on
April 3, 2014. The parties request that the Court extend all deadlines, including the
trial date, established in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 33) for a
period of 180 days, and in support state that “discovery has not yet progressed to the
point where documents can be exchanged, depositions coordinated, experts retained,
and expert reports disclosed” because the case is “not yet at issue” due to two pending
motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint filed by Defendants. Doc.
50 at 2.
Rule 16(b)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a court may
modify a scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, which “precludes
modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence” of the parties.

Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks
omitted). Motions to extend deadlines, particularly the dates of pretrial conferences
and trials, however, are “distinctly disfavored after entry of the Case Management
and Scheduling Order.” M.D.Fla. R. 3.05(c)(2)(E).
In this case, although the parties indicate that they have served their initial
Rule 26 disclosures and that Plaintiff served Requests for Production and Defendants
responded, these actions were completed prior to the dismissal of the previous
complaint and Plaintiff’s filing the Third Amended Complaint. Doc. 50 at 1-2.

The

parties now represent that “discovery has not yet progressed to the point where
documents can be exchanged, depositions coordinated, experts retained and expert
reports disclosed.” Doc. 50 at 2. Thus, it appears that the deadlines set forth in the
Case Management and Scheduling Order “cannot be met,” Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418,
though the Court questions whether the parties have shown the requisite diligence
by failing to complete any additional discovery to date.
Nevertheless, upon balancing the parties’ interest in potentially avoiding any
undue burden and expense of discovery with the goals of expedient and just resolution
of cases expressed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Middle District of
Florida Local Rules, the Court will grant an extension of all deadlines in this case.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 1; M.D.Fla. R. 1.01(b); M.D.Fla. R. 3.05(c)(2)(E). A six-month extension
of the deadlines, however, would be inconsistent with the “goal of the court that a
trial will be conducted in all Track Two cases within two years after the filing of the
complaint, and that most such cases will be tried within one year after the filing of

-2-

the complaint.” 1

M.D.Fla. R. 3.05(c)(2)(E).

Instead, the Court will grant an

extension of the deadlines in this case for a period of ninety (90) days.
The Court cautions the parties that “[f]ailure to complete discovery procedures
within the time established pursuant to Rule 3.05 of [the Local Rules] shall not
constitute cause for continuance unless such failure or inability . . . is not the result
of lack of diligence in pursuing such discovery.” M.D.Fla. R. 3.09(b); see also Lee v.

Etowah County Bd. of Ed., 963 F.2d 1416, 1421 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ request for additional
discovery, after the parties had previously been granted an additional four months
during which to complete discovery, because they “failed to conduct discovery
diligently during the four months when they were free to do so”).
The parties should therefore diligently pursue discovery during the extension
period, as doing so would not impose any burdens outside those normally associated
with litigation. See Pioneer Centres Holding Co. Employee Stock Ownership Plan

and Trust v. Alerus Financial, NA, 2013 WL 589187, *3 (D.Colo. Feb. 14, 2013)
(denying a motion to stay discovery awaiting the court’s resolution of dispositive
motions, noting that permitting discovery to proceed while motions to dismiss remain
pending creates no special burden on the parties or the court and advances the public
interest).

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint (Doc. 1) was filed on May 7, 2013. See also
Related Case Order and Track Two Notice (Doc. 16).
1

-3-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

The parties’ Agreed Motion for Enlargement of Case Management

Deadlines and Supporting Memorandum (Doc. 50) is GRANTED IN PART.

All

deadlines set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 33) shall be
extended for a period of ninety (90) days.
2.

The Court will issue a separate Amended Case Management and

Scheduling Order establishing the new deadlines.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 15th day of April, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-4-