CONTINENTAL 332 FUND, LLC
v.
KOZLOWSKI

M.D. Fla. | 2020-01-24
No. 2:17-cv-41
District Court, M.D. Florida (2020)

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 granted the motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of deposing a defendant.

Facts & Procedural History

A defendant moved to reopen discovery to depose another defendant after the discovery deadline had passed and the plaintiffs had settled with that def…

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 Excusable Neglect

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

HILZ, and GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

On October 29, 2019, about a month after the discovery deadline, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit by Heltzel with their response to Hilz’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 513-4). Heltzel then produced about 21 gigabytes of documents via a document sharing platform used by Plaintiffs. (Doc. 533-4; Doc. 533-5). Plaintiffs moved to dismiss their claims against Heltzel a week later. (Doc. 530). Hilz argues that the apparent settlement between Heltzel and Plaintiffs is good cause to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking Heltzel’s deposition. Although counsel for Heltzel and Plaintiffs do not consent to the deposition, no party filed a response opposing Hilz’s Motion. A party moving to reopen discovery for good cause should show that it failed to timely complete discovery due to excusable neglect. EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corp., 703 F. App’x 803, 813 (11th Cir. 2017).

Courts consider four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).

All four factors support reopening discovery. The Court finds no risk of prejudice to any nonmovant, and no party has raised any. Allowing Hilz to depose Heltzel will not delay trial, which the Court already postponed because of the agreement between Plaintiffs and Heltzel. (Doc. 544).

Hilz’s decision not to depose Heltzel before the discovery deadline was reasonable, and the Court finds no evidence of bad faith.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Gregory Hilz’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Deposing Defendant Kerry Heltzel (Doc. 533) is GRANTED. Hilz may depose Heltzel on or before February 28, 2020. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 23rd day of January, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. Before the Court is Gregory Hilz’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Deposing Defendant Kerry Heltzel (Doc. 533). Plaintiffs initially notified all parties that they would depose Heltzel on September 23, 2019. (Doc. 533-1). But Plaintiffs rescheduled the deposition for October 1, 2019, before postponing it indefinitely. (Doc. 533-2; Doc. 533-3).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw