Federal courts are increasingly unwilling to tolerate poor scheduling by lawyers. Here, one of the Defendants apparently forgot or neglected to take the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert during the discovery period. That failure to take the deposition proved costly as the Court refused to extend discovery to accommodate plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff had already filed its motion for summary judgment.
Here, the sole reason that Defendant Dalzell did not timely schedule Mr. Semore’s deposition is that counsel “failed to calendar” the January 20, 2017 deadline. (Doc. 58, p. 2). However, Defendant Dalzell was fully aware of Mr. Semore’s timely disclosed expert report and apparently even addressed it at the mediation on December 20, 2016. (Doc. 60, p. 4). In addition, even though counsel forgot to calendar the January 20, 2017 deadline, the summary judgment deadline was rapidly approaching. Thus, Defendant Dalzell should have been diligent in completing discovery in anticipation of that deadline. Therefore, Defendant Dalzell cannot demonstrate diligence in pursuing discovery. See, e.g., Rumbough v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-811, 2013 WL 11325232, *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2013); Homes & Land Affiliates, LLC v. Homes & Loans Magazine LLC, No. 6:07-cv-1051, 2008 WL 4186989, *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2008).
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant Dalzell has not demonstrated good cause to extend the discovery deadline.
fedcivilprocedure 