Gian Biologics, LLC v. Cellmedix Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Attorney's Fees; granting 31 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Case Management Conference and to Amend the Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines; granting 37 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and to Join Additional Defendants. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 8/18/2016. (ANW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, a Delaware
corporation
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-645-FtM-99CM

CELLMEDIX HOLDINGS, LLC
and PERFUSION.COM, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Attorney’s Fees (Doc.
26), Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Case Management Conference and to Amend
the Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Doc. 31), and Plaintiff’s
Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and to Join Additional Defendants
(Doc. 37).

On August 18, 2016, the undersigned held a hearing on the various

motions and heard argument from the parties. For the reasons stated on the record,
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Attorney’s Fees is granted in part and denied in
part.

The Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff’s request for Attorney’s Fees.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Case Management Conference and to Amend the
Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines is granted. Plaintiff’s Unopposed
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and to Join Additional Defendants is granted.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Attorney's Fees (Doc. 26) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2.

The parties are directed to meet and confer on or before August 31, 2016

to develop key words for Defendants (and Plaintiff, for Defendants’ requests) to
perform a search of their servers for documents and emails to determine whether
there are additional documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production.
Defendants shall have up to and including September 30, 2016 to produce any
additional documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. If there are no additional
documents responsive to the requests, Defendants shall issue a statement certifying
that there are no additional documents.
3.

Prior to parties meeting to develop key words, Defendants shall identify

the custodians, persons or entities with the appropriate knowledge of the information
requested by Plaintiff. To the extent Plaintiff has issue with the custodians, persons
or entities identified, the parties shall address this issue when they meet and confer.
4.

Requests 26 and 27 are granted in part and denied without prejudice in

part. Defendants are directed to produce a sworn financial statement or accounting
reports prepared by a third party detailing the information requested by Plaintiff in
requests 26 and 27.

Plaintiff’s requests for Defendants’ tax returns is DENIED

without prejudice. Defendants shall have up to and including September 30, 2016
to provide the sworn statements.

-2-

5.

Ruling is reserved on Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff

shall have up to and including September 19, 2016 to file supplemental briefing
detailing Plaintiff’s entitlement to fees and costs and the amount sought.
Defendants shall have up to and including October 3, 2016 to file a response.
6.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Case Management Conference and to

Amend the Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Doc. 31) is GRANTED.
7.

The Clerk is directed to issue an Amended Case Management and

Scheduling Order. All other deadlines and directives in the Case Management and
Scheduling Order (Doc. 20) remain unchanged. 1
8.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and to Join

Additional Defendants (Doc. 37) is GRANTED.
9.

Plaintiff shall have up to and including close of business on Friday,

August 19, 2016 to file its Amended Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 18th day of August, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record
During the hearing, Defendants for the first time requested a Markman hearing
prior to continuing with discovery. Plaintiff opposed the request. On February 9, 2016,
Judge Steele directed the parties to notify the Court as to whether this case will warrant
claim construction. Doc. 17. No party filed a response and the Court issued its Case
Management and Scheduling Order. Doc. 20. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to
postpone discovery at this juncture for a Markman hearing and advised Defendants that they
may file a Markman motion in accordance with the Case Management and Scheduling Order.
1

-3-