American Registry, LLC v. Hanaw et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 63 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Case Management Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 9/11/2014.(ALB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
AMERICAN REGISTRY, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
Case No: 2:13-cv-352-FtM-29CM
YONAH HANAW, MICHAEL
LEVY, SHOWMARK HOLDINGS,
LLC and SHOWMARK MEDIA,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Case
Management Deadlines and Supporting Memorandum (Doc. 63), filed on September
9, 2014. Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the deadlines for both Plaintiff’s
and Defendants’ expert disclosures, extended by the Court’s June 27, 2014 Order to
September 11, 2014 and October 13, 2014, respectively, for an additional sixty (60)
days.1 See Doc. 60. The Local Rule 3.01(g) certification represents that Defendant
does not oppose the extension. Doc. 63 at 4.
Plaintiff’s motion also requests that the Court extend “all the Court’s deadlines for
Disclosure of Expert Reports established by this Court’s Amended Case Management and
Scheduling Order dated April 15, 2014 Order for a period of sixty (60) days or some other
reasonable period of time.” Doc. 63 at 3-4. Because Plaintiff acknowledges the June 27,
2014 extension elsewhere in the motion, the Court presumes that Plaintiff seeks an extension
of sixty (60) days from each of those deadlines.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, extending the deadlines for Plaintiff’s and
Defendants’ expert disclosures by sixty days will affect other case management
For example, a sixty day extension of those deadlines will result in
Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ expert disclosures being due on November 10, 2014 and
December 12, 2014, respectively. The Amended Case Management and Scheduling
Order (Doc. 52), the operative scheduling order in this case, established a discovery
deadline of December 1, 2014 and set this case for the May 4, 2015 trial term. As
the case management report form, included with the Court’s Related Case Order and
Track Two Notice (Doc. 16), and the parties’ Case Management Report (Doc. 30) state,
the Court recommends that the last exchange of expert reports occur six months
before trial and 1-2 months before the discovery deadline to allow expert depositions,
and further that “all discovery must be commenced in time to be completed before
[the discovery deadline].” Doc. 16 at 4 (emphasis added); Doc. 30 at 1-2 (emphasis
added). As previously noted, if the Court were to grant the requested extension,
Defendants’ expert disclosures would be due on or before December 12, 2014 – eleven
days after the discovery deadline and less than five months prior to the scheduled
Plaintiff’s motion states that an extension of the deadlines for expert disclosures
will not affect any other deadlines in the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order.
Doc. 63 at 4. Because this statement was coupled with Plaintiff’s statement that it was
requesting an extension of the deadlines set forth in the Amended Case Management and
Scheduling Order, see note 1, supra, it is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff is still
asserting this to be the case. In any event, it is worth mentioning that other deadlines will
be affected and rendered impractical.
Plaintiff contends that the deadlines for expert disclosures as they are
currently set have been rendered impractical by the Court’s recent Order granting in
part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. 61) and
Defendants’ failure to produce requested discovery. See Doc. 63 at 3. Extending
only the deadlines for expert disclosures, however, is also impractical. The motion
will therefore be denied without prejudice. The parties are strongly encouraged to
resolve discovery disputes immediately and amicably, without the need for Court
intervention. In the event that the parties still believe an extension of the deadlines
for expert disclosures is necessary, they should be prepared to request an extension
of all pending case management deadlines and provide the Court with a stipulated
proposed new case management schedule.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Case Management Deadlines
and Supporting Memorandum (Doc. 63) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 11th day of September,
Counsel of record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?