Ranger Panama Fund, LLC et al v. Keamy et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 32 Defendants' Motion for Relief From Scheduling Order. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/26/2016. (ANW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RANGER PANAMA FUND, LLC,
RANGER FUND, S.A., EL POZO
BONITO, S.A., DAVID NIPPER and
BETTY NIPPER, a Florida limited
liability corporation
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-413-FtM-38CM

JOHN KEAMY and CHAMOND
LIU,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Relief From Scheduling Order (Doc.
32), filed on May 9, 2016. Plaintiffs responded in opposition. Doc. 33. For the
reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is granted.
Defendants seek to extend the deadlines in the Case Management and
Scheduling Order (Doc. 25) by 60 days. As grounds, Defendants state that there are
numerous Panamanian corporations that were not identified earlier in this case, and
the authenticity of the records have become a major issue. Doc. 32 at 1. Although
the parties hoped the case would settle at mediation, the mediation resulted in an
impasse. Id. Plaintiffs opposes Defendants’ request because Defendants have not
identified any of the Panamanian corporations or banks from which they wish to seek
additional discovery. Doc. 33 at 3. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that since the filing
of this motion, Defendants have not issued any subpoenas for records from any non-

parties nor have they sought to set the depositions of any non-parties. Id. Plaintiffs
state that Defendants did not seek any records during the entire discovery period
because they were not acting diligently in their pursuit.

Id.

Thus, Plaintiffs

request that Defendants’ motion be denied.
While it appears that Defendants may not have been entirely diligent in their
efforts to conduct discovery, the Court finds good cause to allow the requested
extension. In the future, however, the Court will not be inclined to grant additional
extensions because of Defendants’ failure to properly seek discovery. “The Court’s
deadlines are not suggestions that can be ignored.”
4285384 n. 3 (M.D. Fla. 2014).

Perez v. Garrow, 2014 WL

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted, but

absent extenuating circumstances, the Court will not grant further extensions.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Relief From Scheduling Order (Doc. 32) is

GRANTED. The deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 25)
will be extended by 60 days beginning with the discovery deadline.
2.

An Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order will be entered

by separate Order.
3.

All other directives set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling

Order (Doc. 25) remain unchanged.

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 26th day of May, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-