T. V. D. B. Sarl et al v. KAPLA USA, LP et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying 64 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/5/2013. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

T.V.D.B. SARL; KAPLA FRANCE
SARL; and TOM'S TOYS, LLC,

)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
)

Case No. CV412-230

ME

KAPLA USA, LP; KAPLA USA GP,
LLC; CITIBLOCS, LLC; and
MAIWORIE I. CHAYETTE,
Defendants.

ORDER
On September 11, 2013, the undersigned denied plaintiffs' first
motion to compel defendants to respond "fully" to their discovery
requests, since the discovery requested would likely be mooted by the
disposition of the summary judgment motions pending in the case and
defendants represented that they had no responsive materials. (Doe. 59
(order); doe. 42 (plaintiffs' motion to compel).) Rather than filing a
motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs waited several months and filed a

second motion to compel responses to some of the same requests. (Doe.
64 (plaintiffs' second motion to compel).)
Not only do defendants still assure the Court that they have no
responsive materials (doe. 69), but plaintiffs simply have not shown good
cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) for their late filing.' Discovery closed
on July 1, 2013, and the motions deadline expired on July 31. (Doe. 36)
The motion to compel was filed on November 15, 2013. (Doe. 58.) While
plaintiffs suggest that the Court's September 16, 2013 order denying
Marjorie Chayette's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
supports a finding of good cause, they have utterly failed to explain how
that holding so changed the landscape as to permit the filing of an out-oftime motion to compel responses to the same requests they made in
June. Nor have they explained why they waited more than two months
after the Court made that ruling to file their motion. (Doe. 64 at 16.)
Given plaintiffs' lack of diligence, along with defendants' assertion that
1

Plaintiffs must show good cause for modifying a 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 v. Airprint Systems,
Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998). To show Rule 16(b) good cause, plaintiffs
must demonstrate that they could not meet the scheduling deadline despite their
diligent efforts to do so. Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218,
1231-32 (11th Cir. 2008).

they have no further responsive materials, plaintiffs' second motion to
compel (doe. 64) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this

day of December, 2013.

UNITEI 15ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA