Walcott et al v. Mclane/Suneast, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER granting 21 Motion to extend time to mediate; granting 21 motion to extend time to complete discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 5/14/2015. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CLYDE EDWARD WALCOTT, JR., and
CONNIE SUE WALCOTT, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 6:14-cv-1978-Orl-37TBS

MCLANE/SUNEAST, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Clyde Edward Wallcott, Jr. and Connie
Sue Walcott, and Defendant McLane/SunEast, Inc.’s Joint Motion to Extend the
Discovery Cut-Off and Mediation Deadlines (Doc. 21).
Plaintiff alleges that as a consequence of Defendant’s negligence, he suffered a
traumatic brain injury on July 22, 2013, that has rendered him unable to work for the rest
of his life (Id., ¶¶ 1-2). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in state court on September 29, 2014
(Doc. 2-1 at 2). Defendant was served on November 10, 2014, and removed the case to
this Court on November 28, 2014 (Doc. 3 at 1; Doc. 1). In its Notice of Removal,
Defendant argued that the alleged severity of Plaintiff’s injuries supported a conclusion
“beyond all doubt” that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 10-12).
Defendant also alleged that it was in possession of medical bills for 4 of 7 doctors and
medical facilities that had treated Plaintiff, and that it was in possession of medical
records from 3 additional providers (Id., ¶ 11 and n. 1).
The parties filed their Case Management Report on February 2, 2015 (Doc. 13).
At that time, they agreed that Plaintiffs would disclose their expert reports by May 1,

2015; Defendant would disclose its expert reports by June 1, 2015; the dispositive
motions deadline should be July 1, 2015; they would mediate the case by July 15, 2015;
and all discovery would be completed by August 1, 2015 (Doc. 13 at 1-2). The Court
accepted the parties’ proposed schedule with slight modifications. On February 10,
2015, it entered its Case Management and Scheduling Order establishing the following
deadlines: May 1, 2015 for the disclosure of Plaintiffs’ expert reports; June 1, 2015 for
disclosure of Defendant’s expert reports; July 1, 2015 to complete all discovery; July 15,
2015 to mediate the case; and August 3, 2015 to file dispositive motions (Doc. 14).
On April 17, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the time within to
disclose their expert witness reports (Doc. 19). They alleged that they each had multiple
experts who needed to inspect the scene of the accident, examine Plaintiff, review
voluminous medical records, and write reports (Id., ¶¶ 4-5). Defendant also said it was
awaiting responses to subpoenas for medical records (Id., ¶ 5). Under the
circumstances, the parties asked the Court to extend the deadlines to disclose expert
reports to June 1 for Plaintiffs and July 1 for Defendant (Id., ¶ 6). The Court granted the
motion (Doc. 20).
Now the parties seek a further enlargement of time to conduct mediation and
complete discovery (Doc. 21). They allege that at least 11 doctors have treated Plaintiff
and he has retained 3 additional experts to testify at trial (Id., ¶ 5). They also allege that
thousands of pages of medical records still need to be analyzed, Defendant is still waiting
for responses to subpoenas for medical records possessed by doctors, hospitals, clinics,
and pharmacies, depositions remain to be scheduled and taken, considerable travel will
be required to complete discovery, and counsel have prearranged vacation plans in July
(Id., ¶¶ 6-8). Notwithstanding the fact that it was a problem of their own making, the

-2-

parties also argue that “[s]ince the discovery deadline is the same date as the date for
Defendant to disclose their [sic] expert reports there will not be enough time for either
party to adequately prepare for these important depositions.” (Id., ¶ 7). Then they aver
incorrectly that “[t]he reports of Defendant’s expert witnesses are not even due until after
the discovery cut-off date.” (Id., at 4).
It appears that the parties, with full knowledge of the seriousness of this case,
proposed an overly aggressive case management schedule for themselves. Now they
are unable to complete discovery by the current deadlines and they allege that without
additional discovery, mediation will be futile (Id., ¶ 9). While the Court is not
unsympathetic to the parties’ problems, they are responsible for the situation in which
they find themselves. Nevertheless, after due consideration, the motion is GRANTED as
follows:
(1) The deadline to complete all discovery is extended through August 15, 2015.
(2) The deadline to mediate the case is extended through September 1, 2015.
(3) No other case deadlines are changed.
(4) This Order cannot be cited as grounds to extend any other case deadline.
(5) Discovery conducted after the August 3, 2015 deadline for filing dispostive
motions cannot be used to support or defend a dispositive motion.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 14, 2015.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-3-