Sanchez v. ERMC of America, LLC et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting 71 Defendants' Motion to Extend Disclosure of Expert Reports Deadline and Deadline for Dispositive Motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 9/19/2017. (HJ)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION ROSA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:16-cv-851-FtM-99CM COASTLAND CENTER, LLC and ERMC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, LLC, Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendants’ Motion to Extend Disclosure of Expert Reports Deadline and Deadline for Dispositive Motions (Doc. 71) filed on September 15, 2017. Defendants seek to extend the deadline of September 11, 2017 to disclose expert reports, the discovery deadline of September 15, 2017 and the deadline of October 20, 2017 to file dispositive motions. Doc. 71. Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to attend the compulsory medical examination scheduled for September 7, 2017, and Defendants also experienced difficulty complying with the Court-ordered deadline due to the hurricane. Id. at 3. Defendants state that they have not been able to confer with the opposing counsel regarding the present motion. Id. at 4. On February 8, 2017, Senior United States District Judge John E. Steele entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order, setting the deadline to disclose expert reports for Plaintiff to August 4, 2017 and for Defendants to August 25, 2017, the discovery deadline to September 15, 2017, the mediation deadline to October 16, 2017, the deadline for dispositive motions to October 20, 2017 and a trial term of March 5, 2018. Doc. 32 at 1-2. On August 25, 2017, Defendants moved to extend their deadline for disclosure of expert reports to September 11, 2017, which the Court granted. Docs. 64, 65. 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). The standards for modification of deadlines are set forth in Rules 6 and 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 6 requires a showing of excusable neglect when, as here, a party files a motion after the time for filing such motion has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Rule 16 requires a showing of good cause for modification of a court’s scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Th[e] 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). Thus, a party must demonstrate both good cause and excusable neglect for filing an untimely motion. Estate of Miller v. Thrifty Rent-A- Car Sys., Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2009). Here, Defendants filed the present motion after their deadline of September 11, 2017 to disclose expert reports had expired. Docs. 65, 71. Nonetheless, based on Defendants’ representation, the Court finds good cause and excusable neglect to -2- grant the requested extension. Doc. 71. The Court also notes that the requested extension will not affect the remaining deadlines. ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Extend Disclosure of Expert Reports Deadline and Deadline for Dispositive Motions (Doc. 71) is GRANTED. 2. An amended case management and scheduling order will be issued under a separate cover. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 19th day of September, 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?