All-Tag Corporation v. Checkpoint Systems, Incorporated, No. 9:2017cv81261 - Document 104 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting 90 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Expert Disclosures. Plaintiff's Expert Reports and Disclosures due by 6/21/2019. Defendant's Expert Reports and Disclosures due by 7/22/2019. Rebuttal Experts Reports and Disclsures due by 8/5/2019. Expert Discovery due by 9/11/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 4/4/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
All-Tag Corporation v. Checkpoint Systems, Incorporated Doc. 104 IN TH E UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T C O U RT FO R TH E SO U TH ER N D IST RIC T O F FLO R IDA CA SE N O .9:I7-CV -8IZ6I-D IM ITROU LEA SN A TTHEW M AN ALL-TA G CO RP., Plaintiff, FILED BY D.C . AF2 2li2219 CHECKPOW T SYSTEM S,lN C., ANGEG E.NOBLE CLERK U S DISI CI s.o.oFF' tk.-w.RB. D efendant. O RD ER G R ANT IN G IN PAR T A ND D EN Y ING IN PA RT DEFEN DA N T'S M O TIO N FO R EXTENSION OF TIM E TO SUBM IT EXPERT DISCLOSURES IDE 901 TH IS C AU SE is before the Court upon D efendant, Checkpoint System s, Inc.'s (drefendant'')M otion forExtension ofTimetoSubmitExpertDisclosuresrDE 90J.Thismatter w as referred to the undersigned upon an Orderreferring a11discovery m atters to the undersigned forappropriatedisposition.SeeDE 51.Plaintiff,All--l-agCorp.(stplaintiff')tiledaResponse(DE 911,andDefendantfiledaReply(DE 951. M otion.R esponse.R eplv D efendantasks the Coul' tto enteran Orderextending the tim e forD efendantto subm itits expertdisclosures.O n M ay 2,2018,the partiessubm itted a JointScheduling Reportwith Proposed SchedulingOrder(DE 421.TheProposedSchedulingOrdercontemplatedthefollowingdates: A factdiscovery deadline ofnine m onthsfrom the entry ofthe Scheduling Order; Plaintiff's expertdisclosuresand reports to be sen'ed w ithin 21 daysofthe com pletion offactdiscovery; Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiffsexpertdepositionstobe completed within 21daysofthedeadlineto subm it initialexpertdisclosuresand reports; 4. D efendant's rebuttalexpertdisclosures and reports to be served w ithin 28 days ofthe deadlineto com plete initialexpertdeposition;and 5. Defendant's rebuttal expert depositions to be com pleted and the close of expert discovery w ithin 21 days of the deadline to subm it rebuttal expert disclosures and reports. On M ay 4,2018,the Honorable United States DistrictJudge W illiam P.Dim itrouleas entered an Order Setting Trial D ate & D iscovery D eadlines, Referring Case to M ediation & ReferringDiscoveryM otionstoUnitedStatesMagistrateJudge(DE 431.TheDistrictJudgelater entered an Amended OrdergDE 51jon M ay 18,2018 which wasamended only to retlectthe correctpaired M agistrate Judge. ThatO rderestablished a discovery cutoffdate ofSeptem ber 11, 2019 and setthe case for trialon the tw o-w eek calendar com m encing on January 6,2020.The A m ended O rderdid notestablish any deadlines forexpertdiscovery' ,however,the Order states: dtln setting the follow ing deadlines, the Court has considered the parties' suggested discovery schedule.Dates and otheragreem ents betw een the partiesnotothenvise addressed herein shallbe consideredpartofthisOrder.''(DE 51,pg.21. ln lightofthe Court's statem ent in the Am ended O rder,D efendantassertsthatPlaintiff's expertdisclosures were due 9 m onths and 21 days from the entry ofthe M ay 18,2018 A m ended Scheduling Order,as suggested in the partiesJointScheduling Reportw ith Proposed Scheduling Order (DE 421.Therefore,according to Defendant,the following expertdiscovery schedule applies. Plaintiff s ExpertD isclosuresand Reports M arch 11,2019 Plaintiff'sExpertD epositions April 1,2019 Defendant'sR ebuttalExpertD isclosuresand R eports A pril29,2019 Defendant'sRebuttalExpertD epositions M ay 20,2019 Plaintiffhas n0tyetsen'ed any expertdisclosures,and Defendantasserts thatPlaintiffhasm issed itsM arch 11,2019 deadline to do so.D efendantalso states thataccording to the above schedule, itsowndisclosuresaredueApril29,2019.(DE 90,pg.4J.DefendantaskstheCourtto grantan extension untilJuly 3,2019 forthe disclosure ofitsaftirm ativeexpertreport.Id.In thealtem ative, D efendantasks thatifthe Courtperm its Plaintiffto dkbelatedly disclose an expertwithouthaving ever sought''an extension,thatPlaintiffbe required to produce its expertdisclosures and reports by July 3,2019,and D efendantbe required to produce its rebuttalexpertdisclosures and reports by August21,2019.1d. PlaintifffileditsResponse (DE 911onM arch20,2019andrejectedDefendant'sassertion that an expert discovery schedule is in place at this point.Plaintiff argues that by setting the discovery cutoff date for Septem ber 11, 2019,the Courtdid not adopt the discovery schedule proposedbythepartiesintheirJointSchedulingReportwithProposedSchedulingOrder(DE 42J andthereforerejectedtheparties'proposeddeadlines.PlaintifffurtherarguesthatitisStpremature'' to ask the Courtto setany expertdiscovery schedule,because D efendanthas not yetproduced enough discoverythatwouldallow theexpertsto form opinions.(DE 91,pg.21.Plaintiffalleges thatany i*ad hoc schedule im posed now would inevitably need to be changed''upon D efendant's forthcom ing production of discovery, the responses of third-parties, and the testim ony of witnesses.(DE 91,pg.31. Defendantfiled itsReply gDE 95Jon March 27,2019.Defendantreiteratesitsassertion thattheCourt'sAm ended Scheduling OrderatDE 42 clearly delineated a deadlineforPlaintiffs expertdisclosuresasM arch 11,2019.DefendantfurtherarguesthatPlaintiffshouldbebarred from belatedly disclosingexpertsaftertheexpiration ofitsexpertdisclosuredeadline.(DE 95,pg.2j. DefendantalsorejectsPlaintiffsassertionthatan expertdiscovery scheduleisprematuredueto inadequateproduction.(DE 95,pg.3J.Defendantclaimsthatithasalreadyproducedasubstantial am ountofdiscovery,and that ifPlaintifffeltthatitcould notm eetits expertdiscovery deadline because ofdiscovery issues,Plaintiffshould have m oved for an extension ofthe expertdiscovery deadlinepriorto the M arch 11,2019 due date. Il. A nalysis The Courthascarefully considered theM otion gDE 901,Response (DE 911,Reply (DE 951,the Joint Scheduling Reportwith Proposed Scheduling Order (DE 421,the Amended SchedulingOrdergDE 511,andtheentiredocketinthiscase.Aftercarefulconsideration,theCourt finds thatD efendant's M otion appears to m ake m uch ado aboutnothing.The Courtagrees w ith Plaintiff'scontention thatPlaintiffdid notm issits expertdiscovery disclosure deadline because no deadline was in place. A lthough the parties indeed contem plated an expert discovery schedule in their Joint Scheduling ReportgDE 421,thatschedule contemplated a factdiscovery cut-offdateofçtnine monthsfrom theentry oftheSchedulingOrder.''(DE 42,pg.lj.Theexpel'tdiscovery deadlines suggested by the parties w ere notspecific dates but instead theoreticaldates,i.e.1i2 1 days from fact discovery cut-off date,''which in turn w as ûûnine m onths from the entry of the Scheduling O rder.''1d.The A m ended O rder seta discovery cutoff date of Septem ber l1,2019, 16 m onths after the entry of the Am ended Order1, and set the case for trial on the tw o-week calendar commencingonJanuary 3,2020.gDE 511.BecausetheAmendedOrdersetafilnn discoverycutoffdate of Septem ber 11,2019,the Order superseded any agreem entm ade by the parties which contem plated a different discovery cut-off date. Therefore, the parties' proposed discovery schedule with factdiscovery com pleted nine m onthsafterthe M ay 4,2018 entry ofthe Scheduling Order(DE 431,andtheexpertdiscoveryscheduletlowingfrom thatdate,wasrejectedbytheCourt when it entered its Order Setting TrialDate & Discovery Deadlines (DE 431 establishing Septem ber 11,2019 asthe tirm discovery cut-offdate. Contrary to D efendant'sassertions,Plaintiffhasnotm issed its deadline to produce expert discoverydisclosuresbecauseno such deadlineexists.Sim ilarly,Defendantneedsno extension of timeforitsApril29,2019deadlineto senreexpertdisclosuresbecausethatdeadlinedoesnotexist. ln thisregard,Defendant'sM otion foran Extension ofTimeto SubmitExpertDisclosures(DE 90)isDENIED IN PART. H ow ever,in lightofthe parties'instantdispute and inability to agree on areasonableexpert discovery schedule,the Courtdeem sitprudentto setdeadlines forcompleting expertdiscovery within the discovery period setby JudgeDim itrouleas.The Courtisnotpersuaded by Plaintiff's contention thatitisprem ature to setexpertdisclosure deadlinesbased on the am ountofdiscovery production.Rather,setting expertdiscovery deadlinesencouragesthepartiesto confer,cooperate, 1Even ifthe Courtw ere to acceptDefendant's logic regarding the expertdiscovery dates,itwould find thatthe due datesassertedby Defendantarewrong.Thedateswouldtlow from theoriginalO rderSettingTrialDate& Discovery Deadlines(DE 431,filedonMay4,20l8,nottheAmendedOrderfiledonM ay18,2018.TheOrderwasamendedat DE 51 solely to reflectthe correctpaired M agistrate Judge and affected none of the scheduied dates.This simply demonstratesthatDefendant'slogicin countingouttheexpertdiscoverydeadlinesfrom atheoreticaldateistlawed. and effectively litigate thiscase.Therefore,Defendant'sM otion is GRANTED IN PART.Itis hereby O R DER ED thatthe following deadlines apply: Plaintiff's ExpertR eports and D isclosures due Defendant'sExpertR eports and D isclosuresdue RebuttalExperts R eportsand Disclosures due ExpertDiscoverv C utoff June 21,2019 July 22,2019 A ugust5,2019 Septem ber 11,2019 The Courtinstructs the parties to conclude a1ldiscovery,whetherfactor expert,on or bcfore Septem ber 1l,2019.The Courtnotesthatthe currentsubstantive pretrialm otion deadline ofOctober11,2019,and thetrialperiod ofJanuary 3,2020 (DE 51Jremain unchanged and are unaffected by this Order. D O N E and O RD ER ED in Cham bers this Y ayofApril2019,atW estPalm Beach, , Palm Beach County in the Southel' n D istrictofF1 rida. W ILLIA M A T A UN ITED STA TES A GISTR ATE JU D GE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
