Page 1 of 9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW-MJF 

RICKY D. DIXON, 

Defendant.

/ 

ORDER

This case is before the court upon Plaintiff’s “Time-Sensitive Opposed 

Motion to Reopen Discovery for 60 Days and Extend the Deadlines in D.E. 65 to 

February 10, 2023 for Both Parties.” Doc. 71. Defendant has responded in 

opposition. Doc. 77. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in 

part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, a wheelchair-bound paraplegic, is an inmate of the Florida 

Department of Corrections (“FDC”) currently confined at the Reception and Medical 

Center. Plaintiff initiated this action on August 17, 2020, by filing a complaint 

against the Secretary of the FDC in his official capacity. Plaintiff claims that the 

FDC is violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12132 (“ADA”), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 
Page 2 of 9

§ 794 (“RA”), by failing to reasonably accommodate his bowel incontinence. 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages. Doc. 1.

On January 24, 2022, the undersigned issued a Case Management and 

Scheduling Order. Doc. 45. At that time, Plaintiff was proceeding pro se. The

scheduling order set a discovery deadline of May 24, 2022, and a dispositionmotions deadline of June 14, 2022. Id. Both parties conducted discovery. Although 

the record does not reveal the full extent of that discovery, it appears that at a 

minimum, Defendant took Plaintiff’s deposition, and Plaintiff was allowed to inspect

1,865 pages of redacted documents. See Docs. 46–47; Doc. 77, Ex. A.

After the close of discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Doc. 54. The District Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

Docs. 62, 64.

On November 10, 2022, the undersigned ordered the parties to file pretrial 

statements and exhibit and witness lists. Doc. 65. Also on that date, the undersigned 

scheduled a settlement conference for February 16, 2023. Doc. 67.

On November 18, 2022, counsel appeared for Plaintiff. Docs. 69, 70. On 

December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the now-pending “Time-Sensitive Opposed 

Motion to Reopen Discovery for 60 Days and Extend the Deadlines in D.E. 65 to 

February 10, 2023 for Both Parties.” Doc. 71.

Defendant filed a limited response and motion for extension of time to respond 

further. Doc. 73. Pursuant to Defendant’s limited response, the undersigned granted 
Page 3 of 9 

Plaintiff’s motion as to those portions that were unopposed, and provided Defendant 

additional time to respond to the remainder of Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 74. Defendant 

has responded. Doc. 77. 

A. Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery Plan

Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery for 60 days, for the following purpose: “to 

serve one round of discovery requests to Defendant and a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 

subpoena on FDC’s medical provider (Centurion) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 

depositions of persons designated by FDC and Centurion on the issues raised in this 

case.” Doc. 71 at 3. Plaintiff maintains that granting his request will leave the date 

for the settlement conference—February 16, 2023—“intact.” Id. at 1.

Plaintiff’s proposed “one round of discovery requests” would request the 

following items:

a. Plaintiff’s complete medical and mental health files. 

b. Plaintiff’s classification file, to include Plaintiff’s housing records, his 

grievances and appeals, any disciplinary charges, dispositions, and 

worksheets, housing records, classification records, movement records, 

use of force records, investigation records, incident reports.

c. Duty rosters “for all shifts for the week of the incident.”

d. Dormitory logs “for the whole dorm” to show “when officers walk their 

rounds” and “how many inmates are in the dorm.”

e. Communications. 

f. Records relating to Disability Rights Florida (DRF) v. Julie Jones, and 

FDC compliance with the consent agreement relative to disabled inmates.
Page 4 of 9 

g. Personnel records of “persons implementing de facto policies on 

accommodating paralyzed or incontinent persons.” 

h. Training records of “persons implementing de facto policies on 

accommodating paralyzed or incontinent persons.” 

i. Training materials “relative to accommodating paralyzed or incontinent 

persons, dealing with skin infections.” 

j. Policies and procedures, manuals, and guidelines currently in effect “for 

the accommodation of paralyzed and/or incontinent inmates and treatment 

of tissue, bone, and blood infections or sepsis.” 

k. Records of diaper purchase and inventory at Plaintiff’s facility from 2015. 

l. Actual samples of the diapers FDC claims are appropriate for Plaintiff. 

Id. at 2–3.

B. Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery Plan

Defendant did not oppose issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena on the nonparty 

medical provider for documents related to the issues in this case (subject to the 

provider’s right to object). Doc. 73. The undersigned previously granted that aspect 

of Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 74.

Defendant opposes reopening discovery for any other purpose. Defendant 

explains that during the discovery period, Plaintiff availed himself of the discovery 

process by serving a request for production and inspecting 1,865 pages of documents 

as a result thereof. Doc. 77 & Ex. A. Defendant maintains that the appearance of 

counsel on Plaintiff’s behalf—in and of itself—does not justify reopening discovery. 

Defendant states that if this court reopens discovery, his position concerning

the particular items Plaintiff seeks is as follows: 
Page 5 of 9

a. Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records. Defendant does not 

object to the production of Plaintiff’s medical and mental health files 

subject to the HIPAA Qualified Protective Order entered by this court.

b. Plaintiff’s classification file. Defendant does not object to production of 

Plaintiff’s classification file, subject to redaction of any documents for 

security restrictions required by the FDC.

c. Duty Rosters. Defendant objects to production of “duty rosters” on both 

security and relevancy grounds. Defendant explains that the narrow issue 

in this case is whether Plaintiff should have received, and should continue 

to receive, “pediatric” diapers. There is no showing of relevancy as to 

where unspecified personnel were working on unidentified dates, relative 

to unspecified incidents. Furthermore, it would be unduly burdensome for 

Defendant to attempt to accommodate such a request. Plaintiff mentions 

the “week of the incident”; however, his complaint is not related to a 

single “incident,” but rather an alleged ongoing practice.

d. Dormitory logs. Defendant objects to production of “dormitory logs” for 

the same reasons stated for subparagraph c. above. 

e. Communications. Defendant objects to production of unspecified 

“communications” because the request is so overbroad and lacking in 

specificity that it would be unduly burdensome for Defendant to attempt 

to respond.

f. Records in Disability Rights Florida (DRF) v. Julie Jones. Defendant 

objects to producing records pertaining to that case because they are 

public documents that are equally available to Plaintiff’s counsel.

g. Personnel records. Defendant objects to production of unspecified 

personnel records of unspecified persons, for the reasons provided in

subparagraph “e.” above.

h. Training records. Defendant objects to production of training records of 

unspecified persons for the reasons discussed in subparagraphs “e.” and 

“g.” above.

i. Training materials. Defendant will attempt to produce the training 

materials as specified.
Page 6 of 9

j. Policies, procedures, manuals and guidelines. Defendant will attempt 

to produce the policies, procedures, manuals, and guidelines specified.

k. Records of diaper purchases and inventory pertaining to Plaintiff.

Defendant will attempt to produce the records of diaper purchase and 

inventory pertaining to Plaintiff, provided they still exist. However, 

Defendant objects to producing records pertaining to any other inmate. 

Diaper purchases pertaining to other inmates are irrelevant and disclosure 

of that information could violate those inmates’ Protected Health 

Information under HIPAA. 

l. Diaper samples. Defendant will attempt to produce the diaper samples 

specified.

Doc. 77 at 2-4.

II. DISCUSSION

In Ashmore v. Secretary, Department of Transportation, 503 F. App’x 683

(11th Cir. 2013), the court applied the following standard to a motion to reopen 

discovery:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the district court 

must issue a scheduling order that limits the time to complete discovery. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). The schedule set forth by the court may 

only be modified for good cause and with the court’s consent. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Additionally, under Rule 6(b), when an act must be 

done within a specified time, the court may extend that time period for 

good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). To establish good cause, the 

party seeking the extension must establish that the schedule could not 

be met despite the party’s diligence. Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury 

Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008). We have often 

held that a district court has not abused its discretion by holding the 

litigants to the clear terms of its scheduling order. See, e.g., Josendis, 

662 F.3d at 1307.

Under Rule 6(b)(1)(B), the court may, for good cause, extend the 

time period for filing a motion after the deadline has expired as long as 

the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. To determine if 

there was excusable neglect, the court considers the following factors: 
Page 7 of 9

(1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant; (2) the length of delay 

and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the 

delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the 

movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. 

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.

Ct. 1489, 1498, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993). We have noted that, in 

Pioneer, the Supreme Court accorded primary importance to the 

absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party and to the interest of 

efficient judicial administration. See Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container 

Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 850 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that the nonmovant 

was not prejudiced by the movant’s six-day delay).

Ashmore, 503 F. App’x at 685–86.

Defendant is correct that neither Plaintiff’s pro se status during discovery, nor 

the recent appearance of counsel on Plaintiff’s behalf—in and of itself—establishes

“good cause” to reopen discovery. Nevertheless, this court is mindful that the recent 

appearance of counsel on Plaintiff’s behalf was in response to this court soliciting 

the local federal bar for a volunteer attorney to assist Plaintiff. In order to prepare 

for the settlement conference (and trial), counsel needs to review documents relevant 

to Plaintiff’s claims even though Plaintiff, himself, already inspected some of those 

documents.

It does not appear that Defendant will be prejudiced by the court reopening 

discovery—for a short period of time—on the very narrow and individualized

issue presented in this case. As long as that discovery is completed before the 

scheduled settlement conference, it will not impact judicial proceedings. 

Thus, having reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed discovery and Defendant’s 

response, and bearing in mind the extremely limited nature of Plaintiff’s ADA and 
Page 8 of 9

RA claims, the court will reopen discovery for the purpose of allowing Plaintiff to 

serve a document request for the following materials:

a. Plaintiff’s medical and mental health files, subject to the terms of the 

HIPAA Qualified Protective Order entered in this case.

b. Plaintiff’s classification file, subject to redaction of any documents for 

security reasons as required by the Florida Department of Corrections.

c. Training materials relating to accommodating paralyzed or incontinent 

inmates.

d. Policies and procedures, manuals, and guidelines currently in effect for 

the accommodation of paralyzed and/or incontinent inmates.

e. Records of diaper purchase and inventory at Plaintiff’s facilities from 

2015 to the present.

f. Actual samples of the diapers the FDC claims are appropriate for 

Plaintiff.

At this time, the court will not allow discovery with regard to the remaining 

items, because the requests are overly broad and lacking in specificity, and because 

Plaintiff has not shown how the requested items are relevant to his claim that the 

diapers Defendant provides are not a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s 

bowel incontinence.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED:

1. The portion of Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, Doc. 71, that 

previously was deferred, is now GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as 

follows:
Page 9 of 9 

a. Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery is GRANTED to the 

extent that discovery is REOPENED until FEBRUARY 6, 2023 for 

the purpose of Plaintiff serving a discovery request on Defendant for 

the six categories of items specified in Section II, items “a.” through 

“f.” above; and

b. Plaintiff shall serve his discovery request on or before 

JANUARY 6, 2023, and Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s 

discovery request on or before FEBRUARY 6, 2023. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion, Doc. 71, is DENIED without prejudice in all other 

respects.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2022. 

/s/ Michael J. Frank 

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge