United States of America et al v. Institute of Cardiovascular Excellence, PLLC et al
Filing
83
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 82 Motion to extend time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 12/11/2015. (Smith, Thomas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
ROBERT A. GREEN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 5:11-cv-406-Oc-37TBS
INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR
EXCELLENCE, PLLC, ICE HOLDINGS,
PLLC, ASAD ULLAH QAMAR and
HUMERA A. QAMAR,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion and
Incorporated Memorandum to Extend the Time for Responsive Pleadings, to Extend
Discovery Deadlines, and to Continue Trial Date (Doc. 82). Defendants’ answers to
Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor’s complaints are currently due by February 1, 2016 (Doc. 82 at
1). The Court has entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”)
establishing the following additional deadlines:
Disclosure of Expert Reports
February 18, 2016
Discovery Deadline
May 6, 2016
Mediation
May 27, 2016
Dispositive and Daubert Motions
June 6, 2016
All other Motions
September 29, 2016
Joint Final Pretrial Statement
October 2, 2016
Final Pretrial Conference
October 20, 2016
Trial Term Begins
November 7, 2016
(Doc. 65). Defendants seek an order extending all deadlines for three months to give the
parties time to negotiate a resolution of this controversy and related proceedings. They
argue that granting the motion will conserve the parties’ resources and promote judicial
economy if they are able to settle in advance of the proposed new deadlines (Doc. 82).
The CMSO states:
1. Dispositive Motions Deadline and Trial Not Extended Motions to extend the dispositive motions deadline or to
continue the trial are generally denied. See Local Rule
3.05(c)(2)(E). The Court will grant an exception only when
necessary to prevent manifest injustice. A motion for a
continuance of the trial is subject to denial if it fails to comply
with Local Rule 3.09. The Court cannot extend a dispositive
motion deadline to the eve of trial. In light of the district
court’s heavy trial calendar, at least four months are required
before trial to receive memoranda in opposition to a motion for
summary judgment, and to research and resolve the
dispositive motion.
2. Extensions of Other Deadlines Disfavored – Motions for an
extension of other deadlines established in this order,
including motions for an extension of the discovery period, are
disfavored. The deadline will not be extended absent a
showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Local Rule
3.09(a). Failure to complete discovery within the time
established by this Order shall not constitute cause for
continuance. A motion to extend an established deadline
normally will be denied if the motion fails to recite that: 1) the
motion is joint or unopposed; 2) the additional discovery is
necessary for specified reasons; 3) all parties agree that the
extension will not affect the dispositive motions deadline and
trial date; 4) all parties agree that any discovery conducted
after the dispositive motions date established in this Order will
not be available for summary judgment purposes; and 5) no
party will use the granting of the extension in support of a
motion to extend another date or deadline. The filing of a
motion for extension of time does not toll the time for
compliance with deadlines established by Rule or Order.
(Doc. 65 at 5).
-2-
After due consideration, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part, and the parties
shall comply with the following new deadlines:
Disclosure of Expert Reports
May 18, 2016
Discovery Deadline
August 8, 2016
Mediation
August 6, 2016
Discovery conducted after the dispositive motions deadline will not be available for
summary judgment purposes.
Defendants have not shown why manifest injustice will result if the trial date and
deadlines for dispositive and Daubert motions are not extended. Accordingly, the
remainder of Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 11, 2015.
Copies furnished to Counsel of Record
-3-
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?