SOUTHWEST FLORIDA VETERINARY SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED
v.
PETVET CARE CENTERS (FLORIDA), LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2023-12-13
No. 2:22-cv-539
2020 WL 5547922 District Court, M.D. Florida (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Holding

The court denied the defendant's motion to extend the deadline to serve its rebuttal expert report without prejudice.

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant filed a motion to extend the deadline to serve its rebuttal expert report. The motion cited the standard for extending time under Rule 6…

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.

Topics
Good Cause Standard For Modifying Scheduling Orders Modifying Scheduling Orders Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 16 Good Cause Standard

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause Standard For Modifying Scheduling Orders cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Extend the Deadline to Serve its Rebuttal Expert Report. (Doc. 73.)1 The motion can be denied in short order because it fails to argue the correct standard. When a party seeks to extend a case management deadline, as here, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 controls. See, e.g., Est. of Reed v. Nat’l Specialty Ins. Co., No. 19-23178-CIV, 2020 WL 5547922, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2020). Rule 16 commands the district court to issue a scheduling order that “limit[s] the time to . . . complete discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once

Rule 16’s “good cause standard is a rigorous one, focusing not on the good faith of or the potential prejudice to any party, but rather on the parties’ diligence in complying with the court’s scheduling order.” Nolen v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-330-ORL-40-EJK, 2020 WL 9171962, at *1

(M.D. Fla. May 27, 2020). Put simply, Rule 16 “precludes modification unless the schedule [could not have been] met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” See Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F. 3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Nolen, 2020 WL 9171962, at *1 (“[L]itigants cannot

be permitted to treat a scheduling order as a frivolous piece of paper idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.”). Rather than focus on diligence, which as mentioned is the touchstone of Rule 16, Defendant discusses the liberal standard for extending time under

Rule 6. (Doc. 73 at 3.) Defendant’s failure to argue the governing standard is dispositive. See Sosa, 133 F. 3d at 1419. Defendant may refile the motion under the correct standard. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant’s Motion to Extend the Deadline to Serve its Rebuttal Expert Report (Doc. 73) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this December 138, 2023.

c Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. such an order has been issued, the “schedule may be modified only for good cause.” Id. at (b)(4).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sw. Fla. Veterinary Specialists Inc. v. PetVet Care Ctrs. (Florida), LLC, 2020 WL 5547922 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
    …nied in short order because it fails to argue the correct standard. When a party seeks to extend a case management deadline, as here, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 controls. See, e.g., Est. of Reed v. Nat’l Specialty Ins. Co., No. 19-23178-CIV, 2020 WL 5547922, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2020). Rule 16 commands the district court to issue a scheduling order that “limit[s] the time to . . . complete discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, ci…
  • Mont Claire at Pelican Marsh Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2023)
    …Venture and others.” (Id. at 4.) II. Standard of Review When a party seeks to revive an expired case management deadline, as here, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 controls. See, e.g., Est. of Reed v. Nat’l Specialty Ins. Co., No. 19-23178-CIV, 2020 WL 5547922, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2020). Rule 16 commands the district court to issue a scheduling order that “limit[s] the time to . . . complete discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once such an order has been issued, the “schedule may be modified o…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw