Corbacho Daudinot v. Puig Valdes et al

Filing 72

Agreed MOTION for Extension of Time for parties to exchange Expert Discovery by Miguel Angel Corbacho Daudinot. Responses due by 5/1/2015 (Bravo, Kenia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIGUEL ANGEL CORBACHO DAUDINOT,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-22589-KMV

v.
YASIEL PUIG VALDES a/k/a YASIEL PUIG
and MARITZA VALDES GONZALEZ,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
AGREED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
FOR THE PARTIES TO EXCHANGE EXPERT DISCOVERY
Plaintiff, MIGUEL ANGEL CORBACHO DAUDINOT, through counsel, file this
Motion for Enlargement of Time of two (2) weeks for the parties to exchange Expert discovery
and in support thereof state:
1.

On June 30, 2014, the court entered a Scheduling Order [DE 42], which set out

deadlines in which to conduct pretrial discovery.
2.

According to the order, April 15, 2015 is the deadline for the Plaintiff to disclose

experts, and expert summaries and reports; April 30, 2015 is the deadline for the Defendants to
disclose their expert summaries and reports; and, May 15, 2015 is the date for the parties to
exchange rebuttal summaries and reports.
3.

The parties attended a mediation conference on January 14, 2015 with Rene

Murai, Esq. acting as mediator, and, while they did not enter into an agreement that day, they did
not close the mediation, and are in the process of negotiating a settlement with the continued
assistance of Mr. Murai.

4.

The parties believe that they may be able to reach an understanding given just a

little more time.
5.

Retaining an expert and having him draft summaries and a report is a costly

litigation expense that may be avoided if the parties can reach an agreement within the next
couple of weeks.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The court considers four factors to determine a motion for continuance: (1) the moving
party's diligence in its efforts to ready its case prior to the date set for hearing; (2) the likelihood
that the need for a continuance would have been remedied had the continuance been granted; (3)
the extent to which granting the continuance would have inconvenienced the court and the
opposing party; (4) the extent to which the moving party might have suffered harm as a result of
the district court's denial. Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 552 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here the parties were diligent in conducting the mediation conference early, on January
14, 2015, and afterward not keeping the door to an agreement open by not declaring an impasse
when they failed to reach an agreement on January 14, 2015.
The gap between the parties’ respective positions is not wide and may be breached with
further negotiation.
In granting Motions for Continuance, a court looks to the harm suffered by the moving
party when the continuance is not granted. Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc., 489 Fed.Appx.
314 (11th Cir. 2012).

2

In the case at bar, the Defendants agree to the two-week enlargement of time in which to
exchange expert summaries and reports in order that the parties may to continue to negotiate to
reach a settlement agreement.
When considering a motion for continuance, the court looks to see if granting the
continuance would remedy the harm caused by its denial. In this case, the harm caused by failure
to enlarge the time in which the parties may exchange expert reports is that both the Plaintiff and
the Defendant shall incur unnecessary litigation costs, making a settlement harder to achieve as
the parties shall inevitably take into consideration the rising cost of litigation and seek to recover
what they have spent during settlement negotiations. The harm to the parties, can be
ascertainably and concretely remedied by granting a two (2) week enlargement of time in which
to exchange expert discovery, because the parties will not needlessly incur the costs of experts,
which they will seek to recover during settlement negotiations.
When deliberating over whether to grant a motion for continuance, the court will consider
the history of the case, taking into account any previous continuances that may have been
granted on the case, what the effect of those continuances on the case, and whether granting a
continuance would allow the moving party to complete his or her discovery. See, Rance, at 316.
In Rance, the court had granted several continuances already, extending the trial date to
accommodate the plaintiff’s medical condition, but the plaintiff, Rance, had difficulties actually
readying himself for trial even after being granted additional time. The court particularly noted
that in that case in particular there was not any guarantee that if the continuance were granted,
Rance would have completed his discovery. Id.
The case at bar differs from Rance in two very important respects. Firstly, Plaintiff has
never been granted any continuances on this case for purposes of completing discovery, but has
3

worked diligently with opposing party to effectuate a settlement agreement. Secondly, and most
importantly, Plaintiff’s discovery needs are certain and achievable. Plaintiffs already have an
expert willing to provide the expert report, however, providing such services will increase the
costs of litigation considerably, which shall make a settlement less likely.
Defendants shall not be inconvenienced by extending the expert discovery deadline by
two weeks as they shall receive the same benefit of additional time, and the Defendant has
agreed that additional negotiation on a settlement would be mutually beneficial to the parties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court grant an enlargement of two
(2) weeks in which to exchange expert discovery.
Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certification
Undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for Defendants regarding this motion,
sending Sean Santini and Averil Andrews a copy of the agreed motion, and Ms. Andrews stated
that their office had no objection to the agreed motion.
By: s/Kenia Bravo
_
Kenia Bravo, Esq., FBN 68296
Avelino J. Gonzalez, Esq., FBN 75530

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document was filed in federal
court using CM/ECF on April 10, 2015.
s/Kenia Bravo
_
Kenia Bravo, Esq., FBN 68296
Avelino J. Gonzalez, Esz. FBN 75530
Law Offices of Avelino J. Gonzalez, P.A.
6780 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33155
Ph: 305-668-3535; Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

4