Reed v. Forney Industries, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER granting 45 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time. A second amended case management and scheduling order will be issued by a separate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 4/27/2018. (DRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RICHARD C. REED, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-288-FtM-38CM

FORNEY INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time, filed on April 16, 2018.
Doc. 45. Plaintiff requests an extension of the Court’s April 15, 2018 deadline to
complete depositions of out-of-state witnesses as well as the April 16, 2018 mediation
deadline. Id. Defendant opposes the relief sought, but requests an extension of the
deadline for dispositive motions should the Court grant Plaintiff’s requested
extensions.

Doc. 46.

For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the

requested extensions and sua sponte extend the remaining deadlines.
The Court may extend any deadline for “good cause” if the request is made
before the original time or the extension expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). “The
diligence of the moving party should be considered in determining whether there is
good cause to extend a deadline.” Jozwiak v. Stryker Corp., No. 6:09-cv-1985-Orl19GJK, 2010 WL 743834, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2010). In other words, the moving
party must demonstrate it could not meet the deadline despite its diligent efforts.

Idearc Media Corp. v. Kimsey & Assocs., P.A., No. 807-CV-1024-T-17EAJ, 2009 WL

413531, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2009) (citing Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d
1417, 1418 (11th Cir.1998)). Rule 6 requires a showing of excusable neglect when a
party files a motion after the time for filing such motion has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(B).

When evaluating whether a party has shown excusable neglect, the

Court should consider “‘the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant, the length of the
delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reasons for the delay,
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether
the movant acted in good faith.’” Advanced Estimating Sys., Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d.
996, 997-98 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.

P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)). District courts have broad discretion when managing
their cases, including discovery and scheduling. Johnson v. Bd. Of Regents of Univ.

of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001).
Here, the Court’s Order from March 26, 2018 set a deadline of April 15, 2018
to complete depositions of out-of-state witnesses.

Doc. 43 at 10.

Under the

Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, the mediation deadline was April
16, 2018. Doc. 36 at 1. The instant motion was filed after the deposition deadline
and on the day of the mediation deadline. Therefore, Plaintiff must show good cause
for the extension of both deadlines as well as excusable neglect for the extension of
the deposition deadline.
The Court finds both good cause to extend the deadlines requested and
excusable neglect for not having done so before the deadline.

Several external

factors, including technical difficulties and work-related travel, prevented Plaintiff

-2-

from reviewing Defendant’s timely provided document production until April 5. See
Doc. 45 at 2-3; Doc. 46 at 1. This left Plaintiff with only 10 days to prepare for,
coordinate and complete depositions by the Court’s April 15, 2018 deadline, and even
fewer days if Plaintiff acquiesced to Defendant’s suggested dates of April 10, 2018
and April 12, 2018. See Doc. 45 at 3; Doc. 46 at 1. Plaintiff has maintained diligent
prosecution of this case, and neither party would be prejudiced if all the deadlines
were extended to permit the desired depositions and fully develop the factual record. 1
Therefore, the Court sua sponte will extend the remaining deadlines to allow
sufficient time for judicial resolution of the parties’ future dispositive motions.
Given the procedural history of this case, however, the Court will not be inclined to
grant additional extensions beyond those provided by this Order absent extenuating
circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED:
1.

The Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 45) is GRANTED.

2.

A second amended case management and scheduling order will be issued

by separate Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 27th day of April, 2018.

1

Doc. 47.

The Court also notes counsel for both parties have upcoming trials in May. See

-3-

Copies:
Counsel of record

-4-