SIMMONS
v.
USI INSURANCE SERVICES 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 Lockton's motion to quash USI's subpoena because it was served after the discovery deadline.
USI served a Rule 45 subpoena on Lockton eleven days after the discovery deadline had passed. Lockton moved for a protective order or to quash the sub…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 16(B) Scheduling Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Counter-Defendant Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC (Lockton) moves for a protective order or, in the alternative, to quash Counter- Plaintiff USI Insurance Services LLC’s (USI) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action and to Produce Documents to Lockton. (Doc. 113). (Doc. 106). USI opposes Lockton’s motion. (Doc. 120). In May 2023, the court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order (CMSO) establishing various deadlines, including a discovery deadline of October 23, 2023, and a trial term commencing April 2, 2024. (See Doc. 72). On October 31, 2023—eleven days after the close of discovery—USI served a Rule 45 subpoena on Lockton. (See Doc. 113-8). The subpoena set November 16, 2023, as the date of compliance. (Id.).
Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “gives the district court the authority to set a scheduling order limiting the time to complete discovery.” Simpson v. State of Ala. Dept. of Human Resources, 501 F. App’x 951, 956 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)). Once entered, “[s]uch orders ‘control the subsequent course of the action,” Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F. 3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998), and “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent,” Simpson, 501 F. App’x at 956 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)).1 “A party seeking the extension of an already-expired scheduling order deadline must show both good cause and excusable neglect.” Payne v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 606 F. App’x 940, 944 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Fed.
*1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2022) (“The parties’ apparent agreement to continue discovery after the court’s deadline does not make the motion timely.”); Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 8:17-cv-2832-T- 33CPT, 2019 WL 1773288, at *4–5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019) (overruling objections to the denial of a motion to compel brought approximately one month after the discovery deadline); Eli Rsch., LLC v. Must Have Info., Inc., No. No. 2:13-cv-695-FtM-38CM, 2015 WL 4694046, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2015) (denying a motion to compel filed three days after the discovery deadline). Accordingly, Lockton’s motion for a protective order or, in the alternative, to quash USI’s subpoena (Doc. 113) is GRANTED because USI served the subpoena after the court’s discovery deadline. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 30, 2023.
Aranda. Arno Sasone_
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge