Dressler v. U.S. Department of Education et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 Defendant Florida Department of Education's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference and to Submit Case Management Report. The parties shall have up to and including August 20, 2018 to conduct their case management conference, and up to and including September 3, 2018 to file a case management report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 6/20/2018. (DRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SANDRA K. DRESSLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:18-cv-311-FtM-99CM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, BETSY DEVOS,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, NAVIENT
CORPORATION, NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., EDUCATION
CREDIT MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, PIONEER
CREDIT RECOVERY, INC.,
EQUIFAX INC., EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant Florida
Department of Education’s (“Florida DOE”) Motion for Enlargement of Time to
Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference and to Submit Case Management Report filed on June
18, 2018.

Doc. 32.

Plaintiff’s position on the motion is unknown.

Id. at 4.

Nevertheless, for the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted in part and
denied in part.
Florida DOE requests an extension of time to conduct a case management
conference until thirty (30) days after the Court has ruled on any pending motions to
dismiss. Doc. 32 at 3. In support of its request, Florida DOE claims Plaintiff has

not contacted counsel for Florida DOE or Defendants Navient (including both Navient
Corporation and Navient Solutions, Inc.) and Equifax (including both Equifax Inc.
and Equifax Information Services, LLC) to discuss any discovery matters, and that
Plaintiff apparently has not served all of the Defendants. See id. Florida DOE
states counsel for Navient and Equifax do not oppose the motion for extension, but
Plaintiff’s position is unknown because she could not be reached by phone on the day
the motion was filed. Id. at 3-4.
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 6 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires a showing of good cause for extension of a deadline, and Rule
16 requires a finding of good cause to delay the issuance of a scheduling order. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(2). Although the Court finds good cause to grant the
extension and delay the issuance of a scheduling order, the Court is not inclined to
extend deadlines indefinitely. The fact that there are pending motions to dismiss
does not prevent the Court from moving forward with entering a Case Management
and Scheduling Order.

Given that several Defendants appear not to have been

served, however, the Court will give the parties up to and including August 20, 2018
to conduct their case management conference, and up to and including September 3,
2018 to file a case management report.
As to Florida DOE’s assertion that Plaintiff has not yet contacted Defendants
to discuss discovery matters or conduct a case management conference, and in light

-2-

of Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff is reminded that “the right of self-representation
does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and
substantive law.” See Doc. 32 at 3; Sanders v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 151 F.R.D. 138,
139 (M.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d sub nom. Sanders v. Fluor Daniels, Inc., 36 F.3d 93 (11th
Cir. 1994) (quoting Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff
also must comply with the Middle District of Florida Local Rules. Failure to comply
with the Court’s Orders or the Federal or Local Rules could result in sanctions.
The Court further notes Florida DOE did not properly comply with Middle
District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(g). See Doc. 32 at 4. Local Rule 3.01(g) requires
that each motion filed in a civil case, with certain enumerated exceptions not at issue
here, “stat[e] whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion,” and further
provides that a statement to the effect that counsel for the moving party attempted
to confer with counsel for the opposing party but counsel was unavailable is
“insufficient to satisfy the parties’ obligation to confer.”

M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g).

Further, Local Rule 3.01(g) requires parties to confer with unrespresented parties as
they would counsel. See id.; Rigley v. Livingston Fin. LLC, No. 6:12-cv-617, 2012
WL 12915480, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2012). Any future motions filed in this case
that fail to fully comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) may be summarily denied.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED:
Defendant Florida Department of Education’s Motion for Enlargement of Time
to Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference and to Submit Case Management Report (Doc. 32)

-3-

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The parties shall have up to and

including August 20, 2018 to conduct their case management conference, and up to
and including September 3, 2018 to file their case management report.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 20th day of June, 2018.

Copies:
Counsel of record
Pro se parties

-4-