Strong v. Geico General Insurance Company

Filing 19

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Extend Expert Disclosures Deadline; extending Plaintiff's expert disclosures to January 6, 2017, and Defendant's expert disclosures to February 6, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 12/29/2016. (JR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PATRICIA B. STRONG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-1757-T-36JSS

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Make
Expert Disclosures. (Dkt. 17.) Plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadline for expert disclosures
from December 9, 2016, until January 6, 2017, for Plaintiff’s expert disclosures, and a
corresponding extension for Defendant’s expert disclosures from January 6, 2017, until February
6, 2017. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request for an extension, arguing that excusable neglect
has not been shown and that an extension would be prejudicial and necessitate extensions of the
remaining case deadlines. (Dkt. 18.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), when an act must be done within a specified
time—and a motion is made after the time to act has expired—the district court may extend the
time for good cause “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(B). To determine whether a party failed to act because of excusable neglect, the court
considers all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission, including the danger of
prejudice to the opposing party; the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial
proceedings; the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of
the movant; and whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick

Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Additionally, “[a]lthough inadvertence, ignorance
of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect, it is
clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited
strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” Id. at 392. Thus,
“excusable neglect can include an ‘inadvertent or negligent omission.’” Kirkland v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 352 F. App’x 293, 297 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 394–95).
In this case, Plaintiff states that the deadline for her expert disclosures was inadvertently
calendared on the incorrect date and, upon discovering the calendaring error, the motion for
extension of time was filed. But due to a subsequent staffing error, the motion was not filed until
after the deadline had expired. Plaintiff admits that the calendaring and staffing error were fully
in counsel’s control. However, the motion for extension of time was filed less than a week after
the deadline for expert disclosures passed. And there is no indication that Plaintiff did not act in
good faith. Rather, Plaintiff acted expeditiously in moving for an extension, and no other deadlines
will be affected by the requested extension. As such, there is minimal impact on judicial
proceedings and prejudice to Defendant. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion
for Enlargement of Time to Make Expert Disclosures (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED. The deadline for
Plaintiff’s expert disclosures advances to January 6, 2017, and the deadline for Defendant’s expert
disclosures advances to February 6, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 29, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
-2-

Counsel of Record

-3-