Russell et al v. Federal Insurance Company

Filing 24

ORDER granting 23 the parties' joint motion to amend the case management and scheduling order. While it appears a close call whether the Rule 16 standard has been met, the Court will nevertheless grant the joint motion because the parties suggest that the extension of time will facilitate potential resolution. Notably, moving the requested deadlines back two months will push the trial term back by an equal amount of time. An amended CMSO will be entered separately. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell on 1/11/2022. (GSK)

Case 2:20-cv-00937-SPC-NPM Document 24 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 138

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LAWRENCE RUSSELL and
PATRICIA RUSSELL,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:20-cv-937-SPC-NPM

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to amend the case management
and scheduling order (Doc. 23). The parties state they are engaged in settlement
discussions to mutually resolve the matter; and thus, good cause exists to extend the
discovery cutoff and the dispositive and Daubert motion deadlines by sixty days.
(Doc. 23, ¶¶ 2, 6).
The parties fail to cite the correct Federal Rule of Civil Procedure when
arguing for the requested relief. When a deadline appears in a scheduling order and
a motion for more time is filed, “Rule 16 is the proper guide for determining whether
a party’s delay may be excused.” Destra v. Demings, 725 F. App’x 855, 859 (11th
Cir. 2018). Under Rule 16(b)(4), “a schedule may be modified only for good cause
and with the judge’s consent.” Under this standard, the party requesting the

Case 2:20-cv-00937-SPC-NPM Document 24 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 139

extension demonstrates “good cause” only if, despite its diligence, the party cannot
meet the deadline. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16, 1983 Advisory Committee Notes; S.
Grouts & Mortars, Inc., v. 3M Co., 575 F.3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing
Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998)).
To inform the Court’s preparation of an appropriate case management and
scheduling order for this matter, the parties conferred and jointly proposed a series
of deadlines (Doc. 12). Further, the Court conferred with the parties during a Rule
16(b)(1)(B) conference (Doc. 13) to arrive at a schedule that would not need to be
revisited. Indeed, the CMSO expressly warns parties that motions to extend courtordered deadlines are disfavored. (Doc. 15, p. 2).
While it appears a close call whether the Rule 16 standard has been met, the
Court will nevertheless grant the joint motion because the parties suggest that the
extension of time will facilitate potential resolution. Notably, moving the requested
deadlines back two months will push the trial term back by an equal amount of time.
The parties’ joint motion (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. An amended CMSO will
be entered separately.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on January 11, 2022.

-2-