Couture et al v. Noshirvan et al

Filing 138

ORDER granting 125 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce; denying as moot 133 Motion to Compel response to First Request for Production. Plaintiff must respond by July 3, 2024. An amended case management and scheduling order will follow. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 6/4/2024. (CGW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RALPH GARRAMONE, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 2:23-cv-340-SPC-KCD

DANESH NOSHIRVAN,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s first
request to produce documents. (Doc. 125.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
allow this Court to “extend the time” an act must be done “for good cause.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause in this context is not a strict standard. It is meant
to accommodate any myriad of circumstances that might necessitate more
time. See, e.g., Gillio v. US Bank NA, No. 612CV1548ORL36TBS, 2013 WL
12387342, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2013) (“The Court routinely grants
extensions when they are sought in good faith; do not prejudice a party; are not
likely to create future case management problems; the Court will still have
sufficient time to decide dispositive motions; and the extension will not impact
the trial date.”).

Here, Plaintiff seeks a short extension to respond to the document
requests because they are voluminous (84 areas of inquiry). (Doc. 125 at 2-3.)
Plaintiff also cites HIPAA issues and employee privacy concerns. (Id. at 3.) The
Court finds this an acceptable showing of good cause under the circumstances
given the de minimis extension sought and the lack of any apparent prejudice.
See Compania Interamericana Exp.-Imp., S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de
Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996) (“‘Good cause’ is a mutable
standard, varying from situation to situation. It is also a liberal one[.]”).
Defendant’s primary opposition is that an extension will cause prejudice
because he must disclose his experts by June 3, 2024, but will have just
received Plaintiff’s discovery responses under the proposed extension. (Doc.
127.) But any prejudice can be cured by extending the discovery deadline. And
that’s what the Court will do.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s

First Request to Produce (Doc. 125) is GRANTED. Plaintiff must respond by
July 3, 2024.
2.

Given the extension, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to

Respond to the First Request for Production (Doc. 133) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3.

An amended case management and scheduling order will follow.

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 4, 2024.
2

Copies: All Parties of Record

3