Viable Resources, Inc. v. Belyea

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 10/11/2016. (JR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
VIABLE RESOURCES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-2669-T-30JSS

KAREN BELYEA,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Expedited
Discovery and for Abrogation of the Discovery Schedule. (Dkt. 16.) Plaintiff moves to conduct
discovery, including depositions and written discovery, on an expedited basis before the parties
have conferred as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). In moving for expedited
discovery, Plaintiff argues that the discovery sought is necessary to prepare for the evidentiary
hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on October 20, 2016. In response,
Defendant argues that the discovery sought by Plaintiff cannot reasonably be completed within the
limited time before the evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. 17.)
Ordinarily, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have
conferred as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). However,
a district court has broad discretion in controlling and scheduling discovery, Johnson v. Bd. of
Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001), and Rule 26(d)(1) allows discovery
before the conference occurs when authorized by court order. When determining whether to allow
expedited discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference, the district court will consider whether
the moving party has established “good cause.” Hospitalists Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Fla. Med.

Affiliates, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-242-FTM-38, 2014 WL 2565675, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2014).
Good cause has generally been found when the plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction, taking into
consideration, among other things, the breadth of the discovery request, the burden on the opponent
to comply with the request for discovery, and how far in advance of the typical discovery process
the request is made. Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 9.669 Acres of Land, More Or Less, in Polk
Cty. Fla., No. 8:16-CV-640-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 1729484, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2016)
(internal citation and quotation omitted).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that good cause exists to allow the parties to conduct
discovery on an expedited basis in advance of the Rule 26(f) conference to adequately prepare for
the upcoming evidentiary hearing. Nonetheless, the Court notes that this action was filed in Florida
state court on September 9, 2016, and subsequently removed to the Middle District of Florida on
September 16, 2016, and the evidentiary hearing was initially noticed on September 21, 2016.
(Dkts. 1, 7.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery was not filed until October 7, 2016. (Dkt.
16.) Therefore, given the breadth of the discovery requested and the limited time before the
evidentiary hearing within which to conduct discovery, the Court finds it appropriate to limit the
expedited discovery to allow each party to conduct one deposition.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Expedited
Discovery and for Abrogation of the Discovery Schedule (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. Each party shall be permitted to conduct the deposition of one witness before
the evidentiary hearing on October 20, 2016.

-2-

The depositions may be taken in person,

telephonically, or by video conference as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4).
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 11, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-3-