Christmas v. Corizon Health Services et al

Filing 146

ORDER denying without prejudice 142 Motion to Remove Case from April 20, 2021 Trial Docket. Parties shall comply with all deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order 140. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 3/9/2021. (NPC)

Case 8:17-cv-01183-KKM-SPF Document 146 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID 675

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RICKEY LEE CHRISTMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-1183-KKM-SPF

CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, et
al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Remove Case from April 20, 2021
Trial Docket (Doc. 142),1 and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 143). In the
Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 140), the Court set this case for trial
with a date certain of April 20, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. after holding a scheduling conference
to discuss potential trial dates. Defendants now ask this Court to postpone the trial
citing the continuing risk of the coronavirus pandemic and its effect on Defendants’
constitutional rights. Because the Court has taken precautions to ensure that trial may

The Defendants also filed a Notice of Trial Conflict (Doc. 141) informing the Court that
Defendants’ counsel has a case on the April trial docket before Judge Brian J. Davis, Gaines v. Inch,
No. 3:18-cv-1332-BJD-PDB. To the extent Defendants’ motion is premised on a trial conflict, it is
denied as premature because the same motion asking for a continuance is pending before that Court
and there is no date certain such that a conflict will necessarily ensue. See Motion to Remove Case
from April 5, 2021 Trial Docket, Doc. 137, Gaines v. Inch, No. 3:18-cv-1332-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla.
Mar. 8, 2021).
1

1

Case 8:17-cv-01183-KKM-SPF Document 146 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID 676

be conducted safely and because Defendants failed to raise these concerns when
COVID-related procedures were discussed at the Case Management Conference held
on March 3, 2021, the Court finds that Defendants have not demonstrated good cause
to continue the trial and denies the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule
may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”).
The Middle District of Florida has closely monitored the ongoing coronavirus
pandemic for the past year, continuously weighing the risks of continued court
operation, reevaluating what is known about the threat of the disease, and making
efforts to provide access to the judicial system in a manner that is safe for litigants and
court employees. See Coronavirus and Email Filing Information, U.S. Dist. Ct. Middle Dist.
of Fla., https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/coronavirus-and-email-filing-information; see
also District Court’s Address to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Lasane, No.
20-13171-D, at 7–8 (11th Cir.) (detailing the precautions taken by the Middle District
of Florida to address the COVID-19 threat). Specifically, the Tampa Division has
ordered special protocols for all persons entering the courthouse, including temperature
checks, face coverings, and social distancing measures. See Order, 8:20-mc-20-T-23
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2020). The Court has retained a University of Florida
epidemiologist to advise on the continuing risks posed by the coronavirus. In
consultation with this expert, Chief Judge Corrigan informed the Court that it was safe
to conduct jury trials beginning March 1, 2021. Indeed, two civil jury trials have
proceeded safely to verdict without incident or problem in the Tampa Division over
2

Case 8:17-cv-01183-KKM-SPF Document 146 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID 677

the course of the last few weeks. See 5:19-cv-0007-JSM-PRL, (M.D. Fla.); 8:19-cv-2844JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.). Many more jury trials are expected to commence in the Tampa
Division in the upcoming six weeks before the instant trial is scheduled. And as
thoroughly explained at the case management conference held on March 3, 2021, the
Court has implemented special protocols in addition to the ones required by the abovementioned standing order, including prescreening potential jurors through
questionnaires, obtaining plexiglass barriers to separate jurors, social distancing jurors
in the courtroom, and obtaining individually wrapped meals for jurors.
Given the abundance of precaution taken by the Court to ensure the safety of all
participants, the Court finds that the risks of the ongoing pandemic do not justify a
continuance at this time. Further, in the absence of Defendants alleging that the Court’s
protocols for trial during the ongoing pandemic infringe a specific constitutional right
that outweigh Plaintiff’s right to a jury trial, the Court sees no constitutional justification
for a continuance. Rather, the Court is concerned that additional delay is prejudicial to
Plaintiff who commenced this action nearly four years ago. This concern is especially
compounded by the fact that, while Defendants seem to anticipate that trial could safely
resume in August, there is no guarantee that the pandemic will have subsided to a level
that meets Defendants’ standards—whatever those unidentified standards may be.
“What the district court can do—and has done—is to take every reasonable precaution
to enhance everyone’s safety, while balancing” the interests of justice. District Court’s
Address to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Lasane, No. 20-13171-D, at 16. If
3

Case 8:17-cv-01183-KKM-SPF Document 146 Filed 03/09/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID 678

Defendants have specific requests related to the Court’s COVID protocols, they may
renew their motion wherein they address those concerns with particularity. Accordingly,
it is ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Remove Case from April 20, 2021 Trial Docket
(Doc. 142) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Parties shall comply with all deadlines in the Case Management and
Scheduling Order (Doc. 140).
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 9, 2021.

4