Sherman v. Blair et al

Filing 58

ORDER granting 51 Defendants' Motion to extend time. The new mediation deadline is August 31, 2016. Defendants shall notify the Court on or before August 1, 2016 whether the parties have reached an agreement on the selection of a mediator or whether they wish to mediate before a United States Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 7/26/2016. (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ROY SHERMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:15-cv-36-Oc-34PRL

CHRIS BLAIR, FRANCO PORCELLI
and PAXTON SAPP
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to extend the mediation deadline. (Doc. 51).
Defendants make this request as Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew some time ago. (Doc. 39) (allowing
Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw); see (Doc. 29) (ordering that “[i]f Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
counsel for Defendant[s] shall undertake the responsibility for coordinating a mutually agreeable
mediation date and for filing the notice”).
Defendants request that the mediation deadline be moved to sixty days after the original
deadline, which was June 30, 2016. They also request that the current appointed mediator,
Gregory Miles, Esq., be changed to Irwin J. Weiner Esq. Defendants, however, provide no
assurance that Plaintiff consents to medication before Irwin J. Weiner Esq.1
Further, it is uncertain whether Defendants have complied with Local Rule 3.01(g). They
state they sent a letter requesting Plaintiff’s position on this request and that they would supplement

1

The Court notes that, in a recent filing, pro se Plaintiff represented his willingness to mediate this
case. (Doc. 55-1, p. 9).

their motion if and when Plaintiff responded. To date, no supplement has been filed2, and Plaintiff
has not otherwise responded on the docket to this motion3.
Accordingly, and upon due consideration, the motion (Doc. 51) is GRANTED to the extent
Defendants request an extension; the new mediation deadline is August 31, 2016.
However, given the uncertainty about Plaintiff’s position on the request, Defendants shall
notify the Court on or before August 1, 2016 whether the parties have reached an agreement on
the selection of a mediator or whether they wish to mediate before a United States Magistrate
Judge.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 26, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

2

Counsel are reminded that failure to comply with 3.01(g) may result in the denial of the
requested relief. See, e.g., Local Rule 3.01(g) (“A certification to the effect that opposing
counsel was unavailable for a conference before filing a motion is insufficient to satisfy the
parties’ obligation to confer.”).
3
The Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the requested relief could be construed as a lack of
objection to it.
-2-