Kalch v. Raytheon Technical Services Company, LLC et al

Filing 88

ORDER denying 86 Defendants' Motion for Immediate Court Order Setting the Location of Today's In-Person Attorney Pretrial Meeting. Counsel for Defendants, Vanessa Patel and Kevin D. Zwetsch, are admonished for preparing and filing the motion. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 7/11/2017. (SEN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
STEVEN KALCH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-1529-Orl-40KRS

RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES
COMPANY, LLC, and RAYTHEON
COMPANY,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion for Immediate Court
Order Setting the Location of Today’s In-Person Attorney Pretrial Meeting” (Doc. 86), filed
July 11, 2017. Counsel for Defendants describes the parties’ inability to agree on the
location of today’s in-person meeting to prepare the Joint Final Pretrial Statement.
Defendants’ counsel wants the meeting to occur in Tampa. Plaintiff’s counsel wants to
meet in Orlando. Seemingly worlds apart with no hope of compromise, Defendants’
counsel makes a last-second plea for the Court to decide the matter on an emergency
basis. The Court declines counsel’s invitation.
This Court’s Local Rules require the parties’ lead counsel to meet in person prior
to the Final Pretrial Conference in a good faith effort to resolve the case, exchange
witness and exhibit lists, mark and examine exhibits, and prepare a Joint Final Pretrial
Statement to be filed with the Court. See M.D. Fla. 3.06(b). However, the Court is
unaware of any legal authority imposing on the Court the duty to act as counsel’s
administrative assistant. The Court presumes that the parties’ respective counsel in this
case are adults, capable of managing their own schedules and itineraries and endowed

1

with the ability to work together in a professional manner. The Court therefore expects
counsel to zealously employ these skills to resolve this dispute on their own, lest they
wish to face a sanction worthy of missing a court-imposed deadline.
As a final matter, there should be no doubt that the circumstances described in
Defendants’ motion do not rise to the level of an emergency. “Emergencies generally
involve risks to the health and safety of individuals, situations where a person is about to
be deported, scenarios involving the imminent destruction of property, circumstances
under which a business is in real danger of immediate failure or significant financial
collapse, or cases where someone is at risk of being denied an essential service.” VMR
Prod., LLC v. Elec. Cigarettes Outlet, LLC, No. 12-23092, 2013 WL 5567320, at *1 (S.D.
Fla. Oct. 3, 2013). “The unwarranted designation of a motion as an emergency motion
may result in the imposition of sanctions.” M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(e). Accordingly, the Court
will admonish Defendants’ counsel for requesting emergency relief where it is clearly not
warranted.
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for Immediate Court
Order Setting the Location of Today’s In-Person Attorney Pretrial Meeting (Doc. 86) is
DENIED. Counsel for Defendants, Vanessa Patel and Kevin D. Zwetsch, are
ADMONISHED for preparing and filing the motion.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 11, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

2