SPM Thermo-Shield, Inc. v. SICC, GMBH et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting 43 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Expert Report Deadline. Plaintiff shall have up to and including April 14, 2017 to disclose expert reports. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 3/6/2017. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SPM THERMO-SHIELD, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-439-FtM-29CM

SICC, GMBH and WALDEMAR
WALCZOK,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff's Motion to Extend
the Expert Report Deadline (Doc. 43) filed on February 28, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks to

extend the deadline of March 1, 2017 to disclose expert reports to April 14, 2017
because Plaintiff’s expert needs documents in order to determine the extent of
Plaintiff’s lost profits.

Doc. 43 at 1-2.

Plaintiff alleges that it currently is in the

process of preparing discovery requests seeking necessary documents.

Id. at 2.

Plaintiff also argues that the requested extension will not impact any other deadlines,
including the discovery deadline of May 15, 2017.
oppose the requested relief.

Id. at 3.

Defendants do not

Id. at 5.

On December 29, 2016, Senior United States District Judge John E. Steele
entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) setting the deadlines
to disclose expert reports for Plaintiff to March 1, 2017 and for Defendants to March
31, 2017, the discovery deadline to May 15, 2017, the mediation deadline to May 19,

2017, the deadline for dispositive motions to June 15, 2017, and a trial term of
October 2, 2017.

Doc. 39 at 1-2.

District courts have broad discretion when managing their cases in order to
ensure that the cases move to a timely and orderly conclusion.

Chrysler Int’l Corp.

v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). Rule 16 requires a showing of
good cause for modification of a court’s scheduling order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

“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 to grant the requested relief based upon
Plaintiff’s representations.

Doc. 43.

The CMSO also has not been altered, and

Plaintiff alleges that the requested extension will not impact the remaining CMSO
deadlines.

Id. at 3.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Expert Report Deadline (Doc. 43) is

GRANTED.
2.

Plaintiff shall have up to and including April 14, 2017 to disclose expert

reports.
3.

All other deadlines and directives in the Case Management and

Scheduling Order (Doc. 39) remain in effect.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 6th day of March, 2017.

-2-

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-