Mars v. Urban Trust Bank

Filing 43

ORDER denying 41 Plaintiff's Motion to Have Defendant and Defendant's Counsel Cooperate in Scheduling Depositions of the Plaintiff and Having the Defendant Counsel Appear on Two Consecutive Days in Fort Myers for Depositions Rather than Separate Deposition Dates. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 4/1/2015.(ALB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JACQUELINE R. MARS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-54-FtM-29CM

URBAN TRUST BANK,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Defendant and Defendant’s
Counsel Cooperate in Scheduling Depositions of the Plaintiff and Having the
Defendant Counsel Appear on Two Consecutive Days in Fort Myers for Depositions
Rather than Separate Deposition Dates (“Motion”) (Doc. 41), filed on March 10, 2015.
Defendant’s Response in Opposition was filed on March 19, 2015. Doc. 42. The
Motion requests a Court order requiring opposing counsel to cooperate in scheduling
Plaintiff’s deposition and the depositions of other witnesses in a manner Plaintiff feels
is more advantageous and convenient.1 Defendant’s response states that counsel
provided dates in April for fact witness depositions, but “for reasons relating to both
strategy and expenses (lodging)” preferred to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition for a later
date and requested dates in May 2015 on which Plaintiff and her counsel are
available. Doc. 42 at 1.

1

The deadline by which the parties are required to complete discovery in this matter
currently is August 3, 2015. Doc. 38 at 1.

The Local Rules provide that “[a]ttorneys and litigants should conduct
themselves with civility and in a spirit of cooperation in order to reduce unnecessary
cost and delay.” M.D. Fla. R. 2.04(h); see also Middle District Discovery (2001) at 1
(“Discovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and
civility.”). The Middle District Discovery handbook also states that “[a] lawyer shall
reasonably attempt to accommodate the schedules of opposing lawyers, parties, and
witnesses in scheduling discovery.”

Id.

Specifically with respect to scheduling

depositions, the handbook explains that “[a] courteous lawyer is normally expected to
accommodate the schedules of opposing lawyers.” Id. at 5. Thus, the Court believes
that the parties should continue to work together in the spirit of the Local Rules and
embrace the guidance set forth in the Middle District Discovery handbook, and
resolve this scheduling dispute without judicial intervention.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel Cooperate in
Scheduling Depositions of the Plaintiff and Having the Defendant Counsel Appear on
Two Consecutive Days in Fort Myers for Depositions Rather than Separate
Deposition Dates (Doc. 41) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 1st day of April, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-2-