CHRISTMAS

v.

DOCTOR RODRIGUEZ

1 Notably, Defendants filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings after the Court denied their motion to continue the trial. See Doc. 146. pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court”). Defendants’ motion is primarily based upon evidence obtained in the reopened discovery period, including depositions and hospital records. See Docs. 152–55; Latecoere Int’l, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of the Navy, 19 F. 3d 1342, 1356–57 (11th Cir. 1994) (concluding that the district court was required to treat a 12(c) motion as a summary judgment motion where the district court considered depositions and documents outside the pleadings). The conversion of the motion would amount to Defendants’ third motion for summary judgment. The Court denies Defendants’ motion as untimely because it would unquestionably delay trial. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Under Local Rule 3.01(c), a party may respond within twenty-one days to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Currently, Plaintiff must respond no later than April 8, 2021, the day before the scheduled final pretrial conference and less than two weeks before the first day of trial, scheduled for April 20, 2021. Worse yet, because the motion must be converted to a motion for summary judgment, Local Rule 3.01(d) permits Defendants a reply. As such, the motion will not even be ripe for this Court’s review before the date trial is scheduled to commence, thereby inevitably delaying trial. See McBride v. Coats, No. 8:06-cv-1490-T-24EAJ, 2007 WL 4463595, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2007) (Bucklew, J.) (denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings as untimely where the defendant filed the motion a month before the trial term and one week before the final pretrial conference); see also King v. Akima Glob. Servs., 775 F. App’x 617, 620 n.1 (11th Cir. 2019) (concluding a 12(c) motion was not untimely when made four months before trial); Riggins v. Walter, 279 F. 3d 422, 427 (7th Cir. 1995) (affirming denial of a Rule 12(c) motion as untimely when a party moved for judgment on the pleadings “[m]ore than twenty-six months after the close of pleadings, twenty months after the dispositive motions deadline and two weeks after the final pretrial order”). Finally, the motion is untimely because Defendants never sought to modify the case schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). This Court previously set a deadline to file dispositive motions as October 11, 2019. Doc. 102. A motion for judgment on the pleadings, while not as frequently used, is a dispositive motion. See Ray v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:07cv175–WHA–TFM, 2011 WL 6440521, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 22, 2011) (“This court ordered in the Second Amended Scheduling Order that all dispositive motions shall be filed no later than April 9, 2009. A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is such a motion.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, to file the instant motion consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants must have shown good cause for amending the case schedule and obtained leave from the Court. They did neither. Instead, Defendants disregarded the Court’s order advising them that such a motion would delay trial. Doc. 140 at 1. Given the lateness of the hour, the Court will not afford Defendants another chance to obtain summary judgment when they cannot establish good cause for their delay.