Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NUMBER: 3:20-CV-4698-

TKW-HTC

 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER, 

Defendants.

 /

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFNDANT EDLER’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT 

DEADLINES

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, MATHEW SELOVER, by and through the 

undersigned counsel, and hereby Objects to Defendant Edler’s (in her individual 

capacity) Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Deadlines (Doc. 48), 

and in support thereof, states as follows:

1. The Complaint in this matter was filed in state court on January 17, 

2020 and removed to this Court on March 11, 2020.

2. On April 29, 2020, the parties submitted a Joint Report of Party 

Planning Meeting which outlined the various discovery deadlines.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 9
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 2 of 9

3. The Court essentially adopted the parties request. Under the Court’s 

April 30, 2020 Scheduling Order, Plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline 

was January 8, 2021 while Defendants’ expert disclosure deadline was 

February 22, 2021, and the discovery cut off was April 8, 2021. (Doc. 

25).

4. On or about March 13, 2020, Plaintiff served his initial discovery which 

included request for information concerning expert witnesses, 

including the identity of any such witnesses, their qualifications, the 

subject matter on which they intend to testify as an expert, the 

substance, facts and opinions to which they expect to testify, and a 

summary for the grounds of each expert opinion. On or about June 8, 

2020, Defendant Edler responded to said discovery and indicated that 

she has not yet determined whether she will call any expert witnesses 

at trial. To date, Defendant Edler has not amended this discovery to 

disclose or provide information on her choice of experts.

5. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, and Joint Motion, on 

December 30, 2020, the Court amended the Scheduling Order to extend 

deadlines by 45 days, making Plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline 

February 22, 2021, and Defendants’ expert disclosure deadline April 8, 

2021. (Doc. 43) 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 9
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 3 of 9

6. Plaintiff timely and fully disclosed to Defendants his expert on 

February 22, 2021.

7. Defendant Escambia County Board of County Commissioners 

(ECBCC) disclosed an expert on April 9, 2021 to rebut Plaintiff’s 

expert.

8. Thereafter, Edler contacted the Plaintiff and requested an extension to 

disclose her experts. By agreement, Plaintiff provided Defendant Edler 

an additional two (2) week extension on her expert disclosure deadline, 

making April 23, 2021, the new deadline. 

9. On April 23, 2021, Defendant Edler filed the instant motion requesting 

another extension until May 7, 2021 in which to make her expert 

disclosures.

10.Defendant Edler’s Motion, and her responses to discovery, fail to 

identify any potential expert, fail to state whether Defendant Edler 

intends to disclose more than one expert, and fail to identify in any way 

what areas her expert is likely to offer an opinion. 

11.On April 28, 2021, Defendant Edler’s counsel, by email, and for the 

first time, indicated that she intends to disclose an expert to testify as to 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 3 of 9
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 4 of 9

the scope of a medical director’s authority under Florida law.1 In neither 

her Initial Disclosures, nor her responses to interrogatories, has 

Defendant Edler provided any indication that she intended to call such 

a witness. 

12.Plaintiff objects to the relief requested by Defendant and request the 

Count deny Defendant Edler’s Motion and deny her request to use 

expert testimony for several reasons. 

13. In her motion to extend the deadline to disclose her expert, the 

Defendant cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 16(b)(4) and contends 

that the discovery schedule may be modified only for “good cause.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Defendant Edler asserts as good cause that 

“Edler could not meet the deadline, despite the exercise of due 

diligence[,]” and nothing more. (Doc. 48, ¶ 2).

14.Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has not established “good cause” 

and that “good cause” does not exist to extend the expert disclosure 

deadline.

1 The Defendant disclosed this information in response to an email from the Plaintiff’s counsel 

asking for more information concerning the subject area that she wanted an expert to testify. 

Specifically, the Plaintiff had previously dismissed his claim for compensatory and punitive 

damages against Defendant Edler, in her individual capacity, and wanted to make sure that she 

was not asking for additional time to address issues of damages, as those issues were not 

applicable to Defendant Edler in her individual capacity. 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 4 of 9
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 5 of 9

15.This case has been pending in Federal Court since March 2020. 

Plaintiff has conducted discovery expeditiously and within the Court’s 

scheduling Order, including serving and responding to written 

discovery, scheduling depositions, and making expert disclosures. 

16.Defendant ECBCC, though a day late, has made its expert disclosure, 

disclosing only a rebuttal witness to Plaintiff’s expert. 

17.To this point, but for the deposition of the Plaintiff’s expert, Defendant 

ECBCC and Defendant Edler have called for only one (1) deposition, 

the Plaintiff’s, and served modest written discovery.

18.Thus, there is simply no explanation as to why during the pendency of 

this action Defendant Edler has not been able to disclose her expert 

witness, especially considering that the Scheduling Order has already 

been amended one time (extending the expert disclosure deadline by an 

additional 45 days) and when Plaintiff already agreed to give Defendant 

Edler an additional 14 day extension on top of that.

19.Likewise, the issue as to the scope of the Defendant Edler’s duties under 

Florida law is not new and has been at issue since the beginning of the 

case when the Defendant filed her Motion to Dismiss and alleged that 

she was entitled to qualified immunity. 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 5 of 9
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 6 of 9

20.Again, in her Motion, Defendant Edler does not even attempt to offer 

a justification for modification of the scheduling order which meets the 

“good cause” standard, but instead merely offers “Edler could not meet 

the deadline, despite the exercise of due diligence.” (Doc. 48, ¶ 2).

21.The lone assertion of “due diligence” is insufficient to show good 

cause. See e.g., Target Corp. v. LCH Pavement Consultants, 960 F. 

Supp. 2d 999, 1007-08, 10 (D. Minn. 2013), aff’d, 2013 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 155340 (D. Minn. Oct. 30, 2013) (Denying motion to amend 

complaint where Target alleged due diligence, but failed to explain why 

it could not have asserted its claims previously); see also Tingley Sys. 

v. Healthlink, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34021, *7-9 (M.D. Fla. May 

9, 2007) (overruling the plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate’s order 

denying motion to extend expert disclosure deadline and motion to 

extend case management deadlines where the plaintiff’s counsel had 

not spoken to an expert about any issues in the case).

22.Moreover, Defendant Edler has wholly failed to establish that she has 

acted with due diligence in the first place, as evidence by her complete 

lack of an explanation for her inability to disclose her expert even 

though this case has been pending for well over a year. 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 6 of 9
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 7 of 9

23.In fact, the evidence shows that the Defendant Edler has not acted with 

due diligence and she cannot explain why she was not able to disclose 

her expert after a year of litigation and after two (2) extensions of the 

expert disclosure deadline.

24. Additionally, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm because Defendant 

Edler’s proposed expert disclosure deadline will leave Plaintiff with

only 17 days (just 11 business days), in which to review the expert 

disclosure, including investigating the expert and their contentions, and 

schedule and conduct a deposition before the discovery cut off, which 

is May 24, 2021.

25.To address this concern, Defendant Edler proposes extending 

Plaintiff’s deadline to take her expert’s deposition to June 7, 2021, but 

that proposal is insufficient because it merely delays this case when 

numerous extensions have already been granted; further, as Plaintiff 

just learned the topic that Defendant Edler intends her expert to testify 

on April 28, 2021, four days after Defendant Edler’s deadline had 

already expired, Defendant Edler’s proposal leaves Plaintiff no time to 

conduct any additional discovery which may be necessary.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 7 of 9
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 8 of 9

26.Plaintiff and Defendant ECBCC have complied with their obligations 

under the Amended Scheduling Order, and Plaintiff is entitled to move 

his case forward and complete discovery.

27.Given that the Defendant Edler has failed to show “good cause” why 

her Motion should be granted, and failed to show that she acted with 

“due diligence,” the Court should deny the relief requested in 

Defendant Edler’s Motion. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MATHEW SELOVER, respectfully requests 

this Court DENY Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend 

Expert Deadline.

DATED: April 30, 2021

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Travis P. Lampert

TRAVIS P. LAMPERT, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 0099843

Talbott, Lampert & Stoner, PA

900 East Moreno Street

Pensacola, FL 32503

(850) 437-9600 / (850) 437-0906 (facsimile)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

travis@talbottlawfirm.com

civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 8 of 9
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert 

Deadline

Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of April, 2021 a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing Response was furnished to counsel for the Defendants as listed 

below via CMC/ECF.

s/ Travis P. Lampert

TRAVIS P. LAMPERT, ESQ.

SERVICE LIST

Stephanie Pidermann, Esquire

Lydecker Diaz

1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

ksm@lydeckerdiaz.com

Cecily L. Kaffer, Esq.

The Kullman Firm

P.O. Box 1287

Mobile, AL 36633

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 52 Filed 04/30/21 Page 9 of 9