Global Tech Led, LLC v. Hilumz International Corp. et al

Filing 116

ORDER granting in part 115 the Joint Motion for Extension of Court Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 4/6/2017. (HJ)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION GLOBAL TECH LED, LLC, a Florida limited liability company Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:15-cv-553-FtM-29CM HILUMZ INTERNATIONAL CORP., HILUMZ, LLC and HILUMZ USA, LLC, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs JEFFREY J. NEWMAN, GARY K. MART, GARY K. MART, JEFFREY J. NEWMAN, GARY K. MART and JEFFREY J. NEWMAN, Third Party Defendants. _____________________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion for Extension of Court Deadlines (Doc. 115) filed on April 5, 2017. The parties seek to extend the Court-ordered deadlines because they are waiting for a Claim Construction Order that has the potential to limit or redefine the issues to be litigated here. Doc. 115 at 2. The parties argue that by extending the deadlines, the parties seek to reduce unnecessary litigation expenses. Id. On February 10, 2017, the Court entered an Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order in Patent Case, setting the deadline to disclose expert reports to May 10, 2017, the deadline to disclose rebuttal expert reports to June 12, 2017, the fact discovery deadline to July 10, 2017, the expert discovery deadline to August 10, 2017, the deadline for dispositive motions to September 8, 2017, and a trial term of January 8, 2018. Doc. 108. The parties propose to extend various deadlines, including the deadline to disclose expert reports to sixty (60) days after the Court’s Claim Construction Order and the deadline to disclose rebuttal expert reports to thirty (30) days after the new deadline to disclose expert reports. The parties do not seek to extend the trial term. Doc. 115 at 2. Id. 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, based on the parties’ representations, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion. To allow sufficient time for judicial resolution of the parties’ disputed claim terms, however, the Court will extend the Court-ordered deadlines including the trial term by ninety (90) days. -2- ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Joint Motion for Extension of Court Deadlines (Doc. 115) is GRANTED in part. 2. A second amended case management and scheduling order in patent case will be issued under separate cover. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 6th day of April, 2017. Copies: Counsel of record -3-

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?