Sullivan's Administrative Managers II, LLC v. Guarantee Insurance Company et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 67 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/25/2013. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
SULLIVAN'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MANAGERS II, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.

GUARANTEE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ULLICO CASUALTY
COMPANY, and PATRIOT
NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP,
INC.,
Defendants,

Case No. CV412-212
GUARANTEE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Counter-Plaintiff,
V.

SULLIVAN'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MANAGERS II, LLC,
Counter-Defendant.

ORDER
Plaintiff moves to compel defendants in this insurance over-billing
case to respond to certain interrogatories. (Doc. 67.) The motion,

however, is untimely under the scheduling order, and plaintiff has not
shown good cause for the delay in filing.
The scheduling order, as amended, set February 18, 2013 as the
deadline for filing civil motions. (Doe. 42.) The motion to compel was
not filed until March 26, 2013. (Doe. 67.) So the motion implicitly
seeks to amend the scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527

See

F.3d 1218, 1231-32

(11th Cir. 2008) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)'s "good cause" scheduling
order modification standard before applying Rule 15(a)'s amendment
standard); Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir.
1998) (same). Rule 16(b) requires that parties show good cause for
modifying the scheduling order; to proceed directly to the merits of an
untimely filed motion "would render scheduling orders meaningless and
effectively would read Rule 16(b) and its good cause requirement out of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1419.

To show Rule 16(b) good cause, the movant must demonstrate that
the scheduling deadline could not have been met despite his diligent
efforts to do so.

Oravec, 527 F.3d at 1232. Plaintiff has not even

2

attempted to meet this standard, and the Court suspects it could not.
After all, the interrogatories were served on November 29, 2012 (doc. 67
at 2), and defendants responded on December 21, 2012.

(Id.)

Plaintiff

noted the problems with defendants' responses first in an email sent on
December 28, 2012 (doc. 67-3 at 1), and then in a follow-up letter dated
January 9, 2013 (id. at 4), which threatened the filing of a motion to
compel. Yet plaintiff waited over two months before filing the motion.
(Doc. 67.) The Court thus DENIES plaintiffs implicit motion to amend
the scheduling order. The motion to compel is DENIED as untimely.
SO ORDERED this

day of April, 2013.

IGISTBATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA