Opinion
6:23-cv-1563-PGB-DCI
05-01-2024
SANFORD AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY, Defendant.
ORDER
PAUL G. BYRON UNITED STATES DSTRICT JUDGE
This cause comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Extension of Certain Case-Related Deadlines. (Doc. 23 (the “Motion”)). Upon due consideration, the Motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 16, 2023. (Doc. 1). Ultimately, on November 22, 2023, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 21 (the “CMSO”)) setting forth various deadlines, which were based largely on dates the parties requested in their jointly proposed Case Management Report (Doc. 20). Now, the parties request extensions of time for disclosure of expert reports and discovery. (Doc. 23, p. 2).
II. DISCUSSION
To begin, the Motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) as it lacks “a legal memorandum supporting the request.” Specifically, the Motion fails to “cite[] legal authority or otherwise advance[] a statement of law to support a request for relief.” See Local Rule 1.01(d)(10).
A legal memorandum is defined as “a paper-including a legal brief-that cites legal authority or otherwise advances a statement of law to support a request for relief.” See Local Rules 1.01(d)(10), 3.01.
In any event, the parties fail to demonstrate that there is “good cause” to support the requested extensions of time. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1). Instead, the parties request extensions of time based on the mere “hope[] of increasing the chances of settlement at mediation.” (Doc. 23, p. 3). The parties also assert that complying with the current deadlines before mediation “could make settlement harder to accomplish.” (Id. at p. 4). Yet, the parties cite no authority for the proposition that such bases constitute “good cause” for the requested extensions of time. (See Doc. 23).
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Joint Motion for Extension of Certain Case-Related Deadlines (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.