Opinion
Case No. 2:09-cv-443-FtM-29SPC.
April 1, 2010
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Serve Rule 26 Expert Disclosures (Doc. #24) filed on March 30, 2010. The Defendant moves the Court for an enlargement of time to serve the expert disclosures. As grounds, Counsel indicates certain allegations have been dismissed and Counsel must ascertain whether experts are necessary.
District courts have broad discretion in managing their cases.Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chenaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). The broad discretion given to the court includes the management of pretrial activities such as discovery and scheduling. Id. (citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Uni v. Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), Counsel attempted to contact opposing Counsel but has been unable to make contact. Having found good cause, the Court will grant an enlargement only to the extent that it does not impede the discovery deadline.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Serve Rule 26 Expert Disclosures (Doc. #24) is GRANTED. The Defendant shall have up to and including MAY 10, 2010, to submit their expert disclosures.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida.