SOUTHWEST FLORIDA VETERINARY SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED
v.
PETVET CARE CENTERS (FLORIDA), LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the defendant's motion to extend the expert disclosure deadline, finding good cause due to scheduling conflicts and a recently resolved motion to strike.
The defendant sought to extend the deadline for serving expert disclosures due to scheduling conflicts and emergent deadlines in other matters. The pl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause Standard For Modifying Scheduling Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PetVet argues more time is needed for its expert disclosure to accommodate scheduling conflicts. These issues include several other reports the expert must prepare this month, along with holiday travel. (Doc. 75 at 3- 4.) PetVet’s counsel also cites a host of “emergent deadlines in . . . other matters.” (Id. at 3.) District courts enjoy “broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.” Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 263 F. 3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). Exercising this discretion, the Court finds PetVet has offered good cause for the relief requested. The scope of expert discovery was the subject of a motion to strike that was only recently resolved. (See Doc. 63.) Coupled with the scheduling issues identified by PetVet, extending the expert disclosure deadline is preferrable to hindering the production of this important discovery. See Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F. 3d 1329, 1342 (11th Cir. 2014) (“This Circuit expresses a strong preference that cases be heard on the merits and strive[s] to afford a litigant his or her day in court, if possible.”). Plaintiffs’ primary opposition is that an extension of the expert deadline will cause prejudice. (See Doc. 80 at 4-5 (“[E]nabling the Defendant to file a late rebuttal expert disclosure would result in substantial injury . . . in that Plaintiffs would have little time to have its expert analyze [the] rebuttal report and any exhibits, prepare and take the deposition of Defendant’s expert.”). But any prejudice can be cured by extending Plaintiffs’ discovery deadline. And that’s what the Court will do. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. PetVet’s Motion to Extend the Deadline to Serve Its Rebuttal
Expert Report (Doc. 75) is GRANTED as set forth below. 2. The deadline for PetVet to disclose any expert testimony in accordance with Rule 26 is extended to January 5, 2024. 3. The discovery deadline is extended to February 23, 2024, for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiffs to conduct discovery related to PetVet’s expert disclosure. All other discovery will close as currently scheduled on February 2, 2024. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 19, 2023.
eC.Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record