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

Filing 88

ORDER denying 86 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Mediation Deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 10/4/2016. (HJ)

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 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend
the Mediation Deadline (Doc. 86) filed on October 3, 2016.

Defendants HiLumz

International Corp., HiLumz LLC, and HiLumz USA, LLC oppose the requested
relief. Doc. 87.
On April 14, 2016, the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling
Order setting the Claim Construction Discovery deadline to August 1, 2016, the
mediation deadline to October 21, 2016, a Claim Construction Hearing before the
Honorable John E. Steele (the “Hearing”) on December 2, 2016, and the fact discovery

deadline to May 10, 2017. Doc. 56 at 6, 8. On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
Notice of Selection of a Specific Mediation Time and Date, notifying the Court that
the parties had conferred and agreed to have a mediation on October 11, 2016 at 9:30
a.m. Doc. 81 at 1.
On October 3, 3016, Plaintiff filed this motion to extend the mediation deadline
because it believes the mediation would not be fruitful at this time for two reasons:
(1) Plaintiff has not received necessary documents from Defendants to calculate its
damages, and (2) the parties substantially disagree on the interpretation of certain
claims of the patents at issue.

Doc. 86 at 2.

To have a meaningful mediation,

Plaintiff argues that the mediation should take place after the Court issues a Claim
Construction Order. Id. at 3. Plaintiff recommends that the Court reschedule the
mediation deadline to forty-five (45) days after the Court’s issuance of a Claim
Construction Order. Id.
Defendants oppose this motion because they believe there is no good cause to
extend the mediation deadline. Doc. 87 at 1. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff
agreed to mediate on October 11, 2016 and filed a Notice (Doc. 81) with the Court on
September 9, 2016. Id. at 2. Defendants state that nothing has changed since filing
of the Notice to justify Plaintiff’s present motion except that some time has passed.

Id. Second, Defendants assert that by the Court entering the CMSO (Doc. 56) on
April 14, 2016, not only did the Court decide that having a mediation prior to the
Hearing is necessary but also Plaintiff has been aware of the mediation taking place
before the Hearing since April 14, 2016. Id. Defendants point out that Plaintiff has

-2-

not filed any objection to the CMSO setting the mediation deadline prior to the
Hearing.

Id. n.1.

Third, Defendants argue that the parties need not complete

discovery to meaningfully mediate.

Id. at 3.

Lastly, Defendants argue that

Defendants already have made travel arrangements and paid a deposit of $4,500 to
the mediator. 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, Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to extend the mediation
deadline. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Defendants are correct that Plaintiff has
been aware of the mediation occurring before the Hearing since April 14, 2016 and
voluntarily agreed to mediate on October 11, 2016. Docs. 56, 81, 87 at 2. A month
after filing of the Notice to voluntarily mediate on October 11, 2016, Plaintiff now
moves to extend the mediation deadline one week before the scheduled mediation and
after Defendants have paid their deposit to the mediator and made travel
arrangements to attend the mediation. Doc. 87 at 3. Furthermore, as Defendants
state, the parties need not complete discovery to have a meaningful mediation. Id.
at 2.

-3-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Mediation Deadline (Doc. 86) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 4th day of October, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-4-