AFI Holdings of Illinois, LLC v. Waterman Broadcasting
Filing
50
ORDER granting 47 Plaintiff AFI Holdings of Illinois, LLC's Motion to Extend the Time to Disclose Expert Witness Reports. Plaintiff shall have up to and including September 17, 2018 to provide their expert disclosures. Defendants shall hav e up to and including October 17, 2018 to provide their expert disclosures. All other directives and deadlines set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 17) remain unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 9/7/2018. (APH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
AFI HOLDINGS OF ILLINOIS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:17-cv-491-FtM-99CM
WATERMAN BROADCASTING,
GRAHAM HUNTER, LISA
SPOONER, PETER BUSCH and
JOSEPH DORN,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff AFI Holdings of
Illinois, LLC’s Motion to Extend the Time to Disclose Expert Witness Reports filed
on August 17, 2018. Doc. 47. Defendants filed a response in opposition on August
22, 2018.
Doc. 49.
Currently, Plaintiff’s deadline for the disclosure of expert
reports is August 17, 2018 and Defendants’ deadline is September 17, 2018. Doc. 17
at 1. The parties’ discovery deadline is November 16, 2018. Id. Plaintiff requests
that the Court extend Plaintiff’s deadline for the disclosure of expert reports by “at
least 30 days” to September 17, 2018. Doc. 47 at 5. For the reasons stated herein,
the motion is granted.
Plaintiff filed this case on June 27, 2017 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, alleging claims for defamation and commercial
disparagement and seeking damages of more than $1,200,000 for loss of sales. Doc.
2 ¶¶ 1, 37-48. Defendant Waterman Broadcasting, Inc. (“Waterman”) removed the
case to federal court on August 29, 2017 based on diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 28, 2017 to add employees of
Waterman as additional defendants.
Doc. 22.
Waterman is a Florida news
broadcasting corporation and Plaintiff AFI Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Happy Leaves, Inc. is
an Illinois corporation mainly involved in distributing hemp oil extract to
manufacturers and consumers. Doc. 22 ¶¶ 2, 3, 12. Plaintiff alleges federal and
state law permit Plaintiff to sell hemp oil extract throughout the United States. Id.
¶¶ 17, 19 (citations omitted). As part of its business strategy, Plaintiff sold hemp oil
products on the website “Groupon.” Id. ¶ 23.
Plaintiff claims on July 1, 2016, Waterman aired a segment on its newscast
about Plaintiff’s hemp oil sales and that Waterman “made knowingly false and/or
reckless statements” about Plaintiff “as a way to sensationalize its story.” Id. ¶ 29.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Waterman reports falsely claimed that Plaintiff’s
product was “pot” and “medical marijuana” and that there was “no way to know
exactly what’s in this stuff without buying it and testing it[.]” Id. ¶ 31-33. Plaintiff
claims Groupon discontinued all sales of Plaintiff’s product because of the Waterman
story. Id. ¶ 44. On July 14, 2016, Waterman released a statement retracting its
July 1, 2016 story about Plaintiff’s product. Id. ¶ 47. Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff’s
“sales were devastated” as a direct result of Waterman’s false statements. Id. ¶ 50.
Plaintiff seeks an extension to disclose expert reports to include “at least one
expert with respect to damage calculation.”
Doc. 47 at 3.
Plaintiff seeks an
extension of at least thirty days to September 17, 2018. Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s counsel
-2-
anticipates tendering an expert on “valuation of lost sales” to determine the amount
of money Plaintiff lost because of Waterman’s allegedly false broadcast. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff’s counsel states he was “until recently unaware that Defendants’ defamatory
statements” caused BMO Harris Bank to close Plaintiff’s bank account shortly after
the Waterman segment aired, and Plaintiff recently subpoenaed the bank statements
from March to August 2016, the timeframe establishing “sales before and after the
segment[.]” Id. Further, Plaintiff claims the delay in disclosing its expert reports
is due in part to Waterman denying knowledge of its reporters’ involvements in
response to the original complaint, necessitating the filing of the Amended Complaint
to name individual reporters as defendant. Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims a delay in
written discovery responses from Defendants also is partly to blame.
Id. at 3.
Further, Plaintiff argues Defendants would not be prejudiced by the requested
extension due to the “current posture of discovery” and the dispositive motions
deadline of December 21, 2018. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also notes Waterman served it
with a request for production of the bank statements at issue on August 15, 2018.
Id. at 4.
Defendants argue Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for the extension and
that Plaintiff has “had sufficient time to identify and hire an expert, provide that
person with all relevant documents, and obtain the expert’s report.” Doc. 49 at 2.
Defendants claim Plaintiff does not explain why the alleged delay in discovery
impacts Plaintiff’s ability to comply with the expert disclosures deadline, and the
unavailability of the bank statements at issue does not constitute good cause. Id. at
-3-
4.
Defendant also notes that Plaintiff states a precise figure in the Amended
Complaint for damages, which further “undercuts the claim the bank statements are
required for an expert report.” Id. at 4-5. Further, Defendants claim they will be
unduly prejudiced by any delay as they will not be able to tender their expert reports
by September 17, 2018 if Plaintiff’s deadline is extended. Id. at 9.
Rule 16 requires a showing of good cause for modification of a court’s
scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 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). 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 System, Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d. 996, 997-98 (11th Cir.
1997) (quoting Pioneer Investment Services v. Brunswick Associates Ltd.
Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)). Additionally, under the Middle District of Florida
Local Rules, the movant must show that the failure to complete discovery is not the
result of lack of diligence in pursuing discovery. M.D. Fla. R. 3.09(b).
Here, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion and extend the expert
disclosure deadline by thirty days and finds Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced
by the extension. This is Plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time to disclose
its expert reports, and although Plaintiff does not specify why it was unaware that
-4-
BMO Harris Bank closed its bank account, Plaintiff alleges it only recently became
of aware of the closed bank account and the possible effect of the bank statements on
the calculation of damages.
See Doc. 47 at 3.
Plaintiff represents it recently
subpoenaed the bank statements for its expert to review. Id. Further, Plaintiff
anticipates tendering only one expert on the issue of damages and has given
Defendants an indication of the approximate amount of damages already. See Doc.
22 ¶ 50. The parties also still have over two months to conduct additional discovery
and the dispositive motions deadline is not until December 21, 2018. See Doc. 17 at
1.
In an effort to mitigate any prejudice to Defendants, the Court will extend
Defendants’ expert disclosures by thirty days as well. Finally, extending the expert
disclosures deadlines by thirty days will not affect any other deadlines in the Case
Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”).
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED:
Plaintiff AFI Holdings of Illinois, LLC's Motion to Extend the Time to Disclose
Expert Witness Reports (Doc. 47) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall have up to and
including September 17, 2018 to provide their expert disclosures. Defendants shall
have up to and including October 17, 2018 to provide their expert disclosures. All
other directives and deadlines set forth in the CMSO (Doc. 17) remain unchanged.
-5-
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 7th day of September,
2018.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-6-
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?