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.

 /

JOINT REPORT OF PARTIES’ PLANNING MEETING

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, MATTHEW SELOVER, and Defendants, 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and 

RAYME EDLER, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to this 

Court’s initial scheduling order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and Fed. R. Civ. P. Official 

Form 52, hereby submit this joint report of their attorney conference and move to 

amend the initial scheduling order, as follows:

1. Conference. A conference of all parties was held on April 13, 2020, 

via telephone, and included the following participants:

Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff; 

Katie Gudaitis, Esq., Counsel for Defendant, Escambia 

County Board of County Commissioners; and

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 24 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 7
Cecily L. Kaffer, Esq., Counsel for Defendant, Rayme Edler.

2. Initial Disclosure: The parties will exchange by May 11, 2020, the 

information required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Initial Scheduling Order. 

3. Discovery Plan: The parties request that the Court extend the Court’s 

currently discovery plan because the unique facts and circumstances in this matter 

will require additional time for discovery. 

First, both defendants previously filed motions to dismiss. Before the Court 

ruled on those motions, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Both defendants are 

currently preparing renewed motions to dismiss, which per the Court’s order are due 

to be filed on May 8, 2020. Plaintiff will respond to the motions by May 22, 2020. 

The Court’s rulings may obviate the need for discovery or may streamline and 

minimize the issues in dispute. 

Second, the Court has previously taken Dr. Edler’s motion to stay discovery 

(Doc. 9) under advisement and tolled the deadline for her to respond to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests. 

Third, Plaintiff’s claims arise from his employment in Escambia County’s 

Emergency Medical Service (“EMS”). Dr. Edler is an emergency medicine 

specialist who is the Medical Director of Escambia County, the Medical Director 

for the Escambia County Jail, and the Medical Director for Escambia County 

Emergency Medical Services. In addition to her county duties, Dr. Edler works 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 24 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 7
in the Emergency Department of Baptist Hospital, Pensacola. Due to the COVID19 pandemic, Dr. Edler has been working extra shifts at the hospital. Both Dr. 

Edler and the County have an increased workload. Most of the witnesses in this 

case will be various employees of Escambia County, Florida, including EMS 

employees. Thus, the parties anticipate additional delays in conducting these 

depositions due to work obligations during the pandemic. 

Fourth, the parties anticipate extensive discovery including interrogatories, 

request for production and at least 10 depositions per side. Given the volume of

documents that will have to be produced, including e-discovery, the parties believe 

that additional time will be necessary.

Based on the above, the parties believe that it would take approximately ten 

(10) months to complete discovery once discovery is allowed to proceed and thus 

jointly propose the following deadlines:

a. Discovery will be needed by each party on the following 

subjects:

(1) All aspects of the complaint filed by the plaintiff;

(2) All defenses set forth by the defendants;

b. All discovery is to be commenced in time to be completed 

within ten (10) months after the Court rules on the Defendants “qualified 

immunity” defense or otherwise when the Court permits discovery to begin. Once 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 24 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 7
the Court rules on the “qualified immunity” defense and allows discovery to begin, 

the parties will supplement this Joint Report with exact dates.

c. The number of interrogatories by each party to any other party 

shall be consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

d. Requests to produce and requests for admissions by each party 

to any other party shall be consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

e. At this stage, the parties request the number of depositions be 

limited to 10 per side. However, the parties discussed that additional depositions 

may be necessary. The parties will work together if any party requests additional 

depositions, but reserve the right to ask the Court to extend the limit if they are not 

able to agree. 

f. Each deposition shall have a time limit of 7 hours unless the 

parties agree otherwise.

g. Disclosure of the identity of and reports from the retained 

experts of the party with the burden of proof on an issue shall be due 90 days before 

the close of discovery, based on the ten (10) month discovery deadline as noted 

above. Defendants’ will be due by 45 days before the close of discovery, based on 

the ten (10) month discovery deadline as noted above. 

h. Supplementation under Rule 26 shall be due as may be 

warranted pursuant to Rule 26(e).

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 24 Filed 04/29/20 Page 4 of 7
i. Written discovery shall be served so that the answers are to be 

due before the close of discovery. Motions to Compel shall be filed as soon as 

practicable, taking into consideration the parties’ requirements to act in good faith 

in resolving any discovery disputes as required by L.R. 7(1). 

4. Other Items: 

a. The parties do not request a conference with the Court before 

entry of the scheduling order.

b. The parties request a pretrial conference as soon as practicable 

after rulings on dispositive motions and mediation has occurred.

c. Plaintiff should be allowed until September 3, 2020 to join 

additional parties and amend the pleadings.

d. Defendants should be allowed until October 1, 2020 to join 

additional parties and amend the pleadings.

e. All potentially dispositive motions should be filed within 30 days 

following expiration of the discovery deadline. 

f. It is difficult to determine the prospects of settlement at this time, 

but the parties are willing to discuss settlement and request a 

mediation deadline of 30 days before the expiration of the 

discovery deadline.

g. As set forth in the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order, the Court 

will enter an order after the completion of discovery which will 

set a pretrial conference and will specify the parties’ 

comprehensive trial disclosure and preparation requirements, 

which includes the final list of witnesses and exhibits under Rule 

26(a)(3).

h. The case should be ready for trial by September 2021 and trial is 

expected to take approximately 7 days exclusive of jury 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 24 Filed 04/29/20 Page 5 of 7
selection.

5. The parties respond to the matters set forth in paragraph 2 (a) i-ix as 

follows: 

i. The parties have discussed magistrate judge jurisdiction.

ii. Nature and claims of Defenses. 

 

1. Plaintiff

The Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his employment with 

Defendant Escambia County, in the Emergency 

Medical Service in which Dr. Edler is Medical 

Director. In Count One, the Plaintiff alleges that the 

Defendants, Rayme Edler in her official capacity and 

Escambia County Board of County Commissioners, 

violated his Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due 

Process Rights. In Count Two, the Plaintiff alleges 

that the Defendant, Rayme Edler in her individual 

capacity, violated his Fourteenth Amendment Rights. 

In Count Three, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, 

Rayme Edler in her individual capacity, violated his 

Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Property rights. In 

Count Four, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, 

Rayme Edler in her individual capacity, violated his 

Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Property Rights. 

In Count Five, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, 

Rayme Edler in her official capacity and Escambia 

County Board of County Commissioners, violated his 

First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights by unlawful 

retaliation against the Plaintiff. In Count Six, Plaintiff 

alleges that the Defendant, Rayme Edler in her 

individual capacity, violated his First and Fourteenth 

Amendment Rights by unlawful retaliation. In Count 

Seven, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, Rayme 

Edler in her official capacity and Escambia County 

Board of County Commissioners, violated Florida 

Status Section 112.3187 by unlawful retaliation. 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 24 Filed 04/29/20 Page 6 of 7
2. Defendants 

The Defendants deny these allegations. In addition, 

Escambia County Board of County Commissioners 

contends that Plaintiff cannot establish municipal 

liability. In addition, Dr. Edler asserts the defenses of 

qualified and absolute immunity.

Dated: April 29th, 2020. 

 

/s/ JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT

JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT

Florida Bar No. 0154784

Law Office of Jeremiah J. Talbott, P.A.

900 East Moreno Street

Pensacola, FL 32503

(850) 437-9600 

(850) 437-0906 (facsimile)

jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ KATIE GUDAITIS___________

KATIE GUDAITIS

Florida Bar No. 106954

Lydecker Diaz

1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

(305) 416-3180

(305) 416-3190 (facsimile)

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

Attorney for Defendant Escambia 

County Board of County 

Commissioners

/s/ CECILY L. KAFFER__________

CECILY L. KAFFER

Pro hac vice

Alabama Bar No. ASB-5953-R66C

The Kullman Firm

PO Box 1287

Mobile, AL 36633

(251) 378-2213

(251) 433-1230 (facsimile)

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Rayme Edler

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 24 Filed 04/29/20 Page 7 of 7