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’ Motion for Reconsideration of 

Second Extension of Time for Discovery Nunc Pro Tunc and Motion for Continuance of Trial 

[ECF No. 73], filed on May 25, 2023. Plaintiffs seek to extend the case’s discovery period for a 

third time. (See generally Mot.; see also Feb. 8, 2023 Order [ECF No. 48] (granting first requested 

extension); May 17, 2023 Order [ECF No. 66] (granting second requested extension)). Plaintiffs 

made efforts to confer with Defendants, but Defendants have not yet provided their position on the 

Motion. (See Mot. 4).1

Having already received discovery extensions totaling three months, Plaintiffs now seek 

an additional one-month extension, through June 30, 2023, to conduct discovery. (See Mot. 1). 

Because this extension would impact the case’s remaining pretrial and trial deadlines (see 

Scheduling Order [ECF No. 18] 1–2), Plaintiffs also request that those deadlines be extended, as 

well as a nearly two-month continuance of the trial date. (See Mot. ¶¶ 23–24). 

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 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2023 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 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)). 

According to Plaintiffs, the requested extensions are necessary because of various issues 

that have arisen during the parties’ depositions, which required the intervention of the Magistrate 

to resolve. (See generally Mot.). These deposition issues are the same problems Plaintiffs 

previously raised in their Amended Second Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline Nunc Pro 

Tunc [ECF No. 62], and which the Court already granted in part (see May 17, 2023 Order 2). 

While Plaintiffs may have “minimally satisfied” the good cause standard then (see id. (citing 

February 8, 2023 Order 2)), simply providing the Court with more details as to the substance of 

the deposition-dispute does not alter the Court’s previous conclusion. 

At most, the new justification Plaintiffs now provide for their requested extensions is that 

“Plaintiffs are still in need of depositions of two [of Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc.’s]

employees, . . . which were requested on April 12, 2023 . . . but Defendants never responded to the 

request.” (Mot. ¶ 20 (alteration added)). Surely, Plaintiffs are not suggesting that waiting more 

than a month to bring this issue to the Court’s attention demonstrates “diligence[,]” particularly in 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2023 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

3

light of the already-granted extensions and the rapidly-approaching trial period. Oravec, 527 F.3d 

at 1232 (alteration added). 

The parties are welcome to extend the close of the discovery deadline “by 

agreement, . . . so long as such extension does not impact any of the other deadlines[.]” 

(Scheduling Order 1 n.1 (alterations added)). But Plaintiffs do not justify a further amendment of 

the case’s schedule. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [ECF No. 73] is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 26th day of May, 2023.

________________________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2023 Page 3 of 3