Kirkland et al v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 91 motion for discovery. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 10/13/2015. Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline 91 is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs' shall have until November 12, 2015 to conduct the deposition of Defendant Jamie Wright, and denied as to Plaintiffs' request to conduct depositions of Martinez, Abbott, Securitas, and Meyers. (KTW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIAM KIRKLAND and STANLEY
KIRKLAND,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-1715-T-24TGW

MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC, ARNOLD
LANIER, ANDREW MCGUCKIN, JAMIE
WRIGHT, MICHAEL LAKE and
THOMAS ABBOTT,
Defendants.

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Extend Discovery
Deadline (Dkt. 91), Defendants Lanier, McGuckin, Wright, and Lake’s Response (Dkt. 93), and
Defendant Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC’s Response (Dkt. 95). The Court, having reviewed the motion,
responses, and being otherwise advised, concludes that the motion should be granted in part and
denied in part.
This is Plaintiffs’ second motion to extend the discovery deadline. On August 11, 2015,
the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time to complete discovery (Dkt. 86), and
extended the discovery deadline to October 2, 2015 (Dkt. 87). Plaintiffs’ instant motion requests a
30-day extension of the discovery deadline to conduct depositions of Defendant Jamie Wright;
Deputy Manny Martinez; Officer Thomas Abbott; Securitas, a private security firm; and Tom

Meyers, Vice President of Mining for Mosaic. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to extend
discovery as to four of the five requested depositions.1
The Court has determined that Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the discovery deadline should
be granted for the limited purpose of conducting the deposition of Defendant Jamie Wright. With
regard to Plaintiffs’ request to conduct the depositions of Martinez, Abbott, Securitas, and Meyers,
Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to extend discovery for this purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b); Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir.1998) (finding that the good cause
standard precludes modification of a scheduling order unless the schedule cannot be met despite
the diligence of the party seeking the extension).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to
Extend Discovery Deadline (Dkt. 91) is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs’ shall have until
November 12, 2015 to conduct the deposition of Defendant Jamie Wright, and denied as to
Plaintiffs’ request to conduct depositions of Martinez, Abbott, Securitas, and Meyers.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of October, 2015.

Copies To: Counsel of Record and Parties

1

Defendants to do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to extend discovery for the purpose of deposing Defendant Wright.

2