Goodman v. Tatton Enterprises, Inc.
ORDER granting 126 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to Appear for Deposition And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law re 117 Order,,,, filed by Harvey Goodman. Please see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 4/19/2012. (RSR)
U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT
SOU THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case N o. 10-60624-CIV-ZLOCH/ROSEN BAU M
TATTON ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a
THAI SPICE RESTAURANT, and
SAUL & J STRACHMAN REV LIV TRUST,
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to
Appear for Deposition. [D.E. 126]. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time within
which the deposition of his client may occur. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel
states that he is “currently out of the country, in Israel, for the Passover Holiday, as well as a
family obligation, and is expected to return by May 1, 2012.”1 Id. at ¶ 2.
Previously, Plaintiff’s counsel filed his Notice of Unavailability [D.E. 121], stating
that he would be “out of this jurisdiction and out of the country, in Israel, on . . . April
12, 2012[,] through and including May 5, 2012.” Id. at 1. The Court notes that, this year,
Passover began on April 6, and, in Israel, ended on the evening of April 13, 2012, thus, placing
counsel in Israel for, at most, the last two days of the seven-day holiday — particularly
significant, in view of the fact that the major rituals — the two seders — occur within the first
two nights and days of the holiday. This Court has a deep appreciation and respect for an
individual’s ability to observe and celebrate religious holidays. But Plaintiff’s counsel has now
twice invoked religious holidays as bases for seeking extensions of Court-imposed deadlines
under circumstances tending to suggest that counsel’s stated reasons for the requested
continuances were not, in fact, the true reasons for his motions. See D.E. 96 (seeking third
extension of time to file response to Defendants’ Joint Motion for Sanctions, based on Shemini
Atzeret and Simchat Torah, and stating religious need not to work during the holiday, yet filing
the motion seeking the extension of time during the middle of the very same holiday period,
which counsel had specifically requested as the due date in the prior motion for extension of
W hile the Court is willing to accommodate Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time
within which Plaintiff must sit for his deposition, Defendants should not be prejudiced as a
result. In the first place, the deposition is already an accommodation to Plaintiff so that he will
not have to appear in person to testify at the hearing. The C ourt gave Plaintiff’s counsel a
three-week period within which to set the deposition — from April 4, 2012, through April 25,
2012. Moreover, the Court set the hearing an additional three weeks after that, for May 14,
2012, so the parties could order the transcript at regular rates and have it in time to use for the
hearing. Extending the deadline for the taking of Plaintiff’s deposition, however, will likely
require expediting of the transcript so that it may be reviewed in time to be used at the hearing.
Therefore, to the extent that the continuance requested by Plaintiff’s counsel for the holding
of Plaintiff’s deposition necessitates the ordering of an expedited transcript so that it may be in
the parties’ hands by no later than May 7, 2012, Plaintiff shall pay the costs of expediting the
preparation of the transcript.2
Thus, it is ORDERED and ADJU DGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of
Time to Appear for Deposition [D.E. 126] is hereby GRAN TED. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall
sit for his deposition by no later than May 2, 2012. Barring extenuating circumstances, no
further extensions will be granted. If Plaintiff fails to sit for his deposition by May 2, 2012, he
will be required to appear and testify at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for May 14, 2012.
See D.E. 117.
Plaintiff’s counsel shall also ensure that Plaintiff’s deposition transcript is delivered to
counsel for Defendants by no later that May 7, 2012, to allow for adequate time to review the
time) ; D.E. 97. The Court reminds counsel that it expects counsel to comply with his duty of
candor to this Court, and to do otherwise is unacceptable and will result in serious consequences.
Each party shall bear its own costs associated with the regular preparation of a transcript.
transcript and prepare for the May 14, 2012, evidentiary hearing .
DON E and ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 19th day of April 2012.
ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM
United States Magistrate Judge
Honorable W illiam J. Zloch
counsel of record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?