UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

DELIO BATISTA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AVANT ASSURANCE INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Amended Second Motion for 

Extension of Discovery Deadline Nunc Pro Tunc [ECF No. 62], filed on May 16, 2023. Plaintiffs 

seek to again extend the case’s discovery period (see generally Mot.), which the Court previously 

extended by two months (see generally February 8, 2023 Order [ECF No. 48]). Plaintiffs advise 

that Defendants have “no objections to the motion.” (Mot. 2).1 

Plaintiffs request an additional 45 days to conduct discovery; but they otherwise make no 

mention of how such an extension will impact this case’s remaining deadlines, including the June 

27, 2023 calendar call. (See generally id.). According to Plaintiffs, the additional time is required 

because of outstanding issues regarding “the scope of allowable inquiry” during a deposition that 

occurred on April 12, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 3–4). A hearing on the matter is to be held on May 18, 2023, 

following which Plaintiffs claim to need “additional time . . . to depose Defendants’ witnesses.” 

(Id. ¶ 5). 

1 The Court relies on the pagination generated by the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, 

which appears in the header on all filings. 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2023 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

2

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order “may be modified only 

for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” This good cause standard precludes modification 

unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the parties seeking the extension. See, 

e.g., Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008) (“We 

have recognized that Rule 16[b]’s good cause standard ‘precludes modification of the scheduling 

order unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

(alteration added; other alteration adopted; citations omitted)); Roberson v. BancorpSouth Bank, 

Inc., No. 12-0669, 2013 WL 4870839, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 2013) (“Diligence, not lack of 

prejudice, is the touchstone of the Rule 16(b)(4) inquiry.” (citations omitted)). 

Plaintiffs have — once more — “minimally satisfied this standard.” (Feb. 8, 2023 Order 

2). A brief extension is warranted to account for the upcoming discovery hearing and any

discovery that may be permitted. But Plaintiffs’ concerns over the scope of a single deposition do 

not support the requested 45-day extension, particularly considering the extension that has already 

been provided. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [ECF No. 62] is GRANTED in part. 

The Scheduling Order [ECF No. 18] and February 8, 2023 Order [ECF No. 48] are amended as 

follows: 

1. June 2, 2023. All discovery, including expert discovery, is completed.

2. No extensions of time will be given for response and reply memoranda to 

pretrial motions, including those for Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

[ECF No. 63].

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2023 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

3

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 17th day of May, 2023.

________________________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2023 Page 3 of 3