Centennial Bank v. ServisFirst Bank Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion to Compel Rule 26 Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 3/1/2016. (OZW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CENTENNIAL BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-88-T-36JSS

SERVISFIRST BANK INC. and
GREGORY W. BRYANT,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 26 CONFERENCE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Centennial Bank’s Motion to Compel Rule
26 Conference (Dkt. 59) (“Motion”). Upon consideration, the Motion is granted in part and denied
in part for the reasons stated below.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to confer as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have refused to schedule the Rule 26
conference and “effectively have granted themselves an improper stay of discovery.” (Dkt. 59 ¶
9.) Plaintiff requests that the parties conduct the Rule 26 conference within ten days of the filing
of the Motion (i.e., by March 6, 2016). Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks to conduct initial discovery
prior to the Rule 26 conference. Plaintiff also asks that any out of state counsel be permitted to
attend the Rule 26 conference telephonically.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), parties are required to confer to
“consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly
settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1);

discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery
plan.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2). “The attorneys of record . . . are jointly responsible for arranging
the conference.” Id.
“[T]he parties must confer as soon as practicable—and in any event at least 21 days before
a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).”1 Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(f)(1). The Middle District of Florida Local Rules provide that, for Track Two cases, counsel
“shall meet within 60 days after service of the complaint upon any defendant, or the first
appearance of any defendant, regardless of the pendency of any undecided motions, for the purpose
of preparing and filing a Case Management Report.” M.D. Fla. Local R. 3.05(c)(2)(B). (See also
Dkt. 12.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff served Defendants on January 14, 2016. (Dkt. 7, 8.) Defendant Gregory W.
Bryant first appeared on January 19, 2016, and Defendant ServisFirst Bank Inc. first appeared on
January 21, 2016. (Dk. 9, 11.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1), the parties should
have conferred by February 27, 2016.2 However, consistent with Middle District of Florida Local
Rule 3.05(c)(2)(B), District Judge Honeywell issued an order on January 21, 2016 directing the
parties to meet within sixty days after service of the Complaint upon any defendant. (Dkt. 12.)
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(4) (“If necessary to comply with its expedited schedule for Rule 16(b)
conferences, a court may by local rule (A) require the parties’ conference to occur less than 21
days before the scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b); and

1

“The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but unless the judge finds good cause for delay,
the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days
after any defendant has appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2).

2

Per Rule 16(b), the scheduling order may be issued by March 19, 2016, which is sixty days after the appearance of
Defendant Gregory W. Bryant. The parties should have held their conference twenty-one days before March 19, 2016.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1).

-2-

(B) require the written report outlining the discovery plan to be filed less than 14 days after the
parties’ conference.”). Therefore, the parties are required to confer under Rule 26 by March 14,
2016, sixty days after service of the Complaint.
The undersigned does not find any basis for requiring the parties to meet prior to this
deadline. Defendants appear to have been cooperating in the process of scheduling the Rule 26
conference and reasonably cancelled the conference scheduled for Monday, February 22, 2016
after Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint (which totals 688 pages including exhibits) on
Friday, February 19, 2016. After cancelling the hearing, the parties jointly made efforts to
reschedule the conference and were in the midst of these discussions when Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion. Thus, the Court will not shorten the deadline for conducting the Rule 26 conference;
however, to expedite the process, the parties are directed to file their Case Management Report
within three days of the Rule 26 conference.
Additionally, as to Plaintiff’s request to conduct initial discovery prior to the Rule 26
conference, District Judge Honeywell already denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedition of
Discovery. (Dkt. 21.) The undersigned similarly does not find that good cause exists to permit
the parties to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26 conference. This does not affect any party’s
ability to send Rule 34 requests for production to other parties prior to the Rule 26 conference, as
permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(2).
Finally, to assist the parties with scheduling, the Court will permit any counsel who wishes
to attend the Rule 26 conference by telephone to do so.

-3-

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff Centennial Bank’s Motion to Compel Rule 26 Conference (Dkt. 59) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2.

The parties shall conduct their Rule 26 conference on or before March 14, 2016.

The parties shall file their Case Management Report no later than three days after conducting their
Rule 26 conference.
3.

Counsel may attend the Rule 26 conference via telephone.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 1, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-4-