United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Kenneth C. Griffin, Plaintiff,

v. 

Internal Revenue Service and U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, 

Defendantd. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-24023-Civ-Scola 

Second Amended Scheduling Order 

Plaintiff Kenneth C. Griffin seeks a 90-day extension of the remaining 

deadlines in this case. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 138.) Griffin previously sought (on 

an unopposed basis), and was granted, a five-month extension of the deadlines 

in this case. (Am. Sched. Order, ECF No. 75.) In support of his second request, 

which the Government opposes (Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 142), Griffin recounts 

some of the history of the discovery in this case, a substantial portion of which 

predated Griffin’s first request for an extension. The main thrust of Griffin’s 

argument, though, is that the Court only recently ordered the Government to 

produce voluminous discovery, that discovery was due for production on May 

29 (less two weeks before the close of discovery), and Griffin will need to review 

that discovery—which Griffin describes as spanning thousands of documents—

in order to adequately prepare for several recently, or soon-to-be, scheduled 

depositions. (Mot. at 5, 10 (“Absent a scheduling adjustment at this point . . . 

Griffin will be forced to take depositions without critical evidence . . . .”).) 

Griffin complains that his current time predicament is solely the result of the 

Government’s “fail[ure] to comply with its discovery obligations” (Sternberg Aff. 

¶ 3, ECF No. 138-1), which he repeatedly describes as “stonewalling” Griffin’s 

discovery efforts (Pl.’s Mot. at 5, 6, 7, 11, 12), requiring him, on several 

occasions, to seek intervention from the Court (e.g. Pl.’s Mot. at 3 (identifying 

multiple discovery hearings and an April 24, 2024, motion to compel)). At the 

same time, Griffin maintains he has diligently and steadily sought this 

discovery from the Government. (Sternberg Aff. ¶ 4; Mot. at 1, 5–7, 10, 11.) 

While the Court recognizes some obstacles to the timely completion of discovery 

in this case—even the Government recognizes that “[d]iscovery in this case has 

been contentious”—the Court does not find a 90-day extension of the 

remaining deadlines and settings in this case justified. 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2024 Page 1 of 5
First, without any explanation or factual support, Griffin says that, 

absent the extra 90 days,1 he will be unable to review the Government’s 

compelled production in order to adequately prepare for several upcoming 

depositions. Second, nowhere does Griffin describe seeking Court intervention 

with any urgency—for example, it doesn’t appear that Griffin ever informed the 

Court that he required an expedited ruling in order to be able to depose all his 

witnesses by the discovery deadline. Indeed, even the instant motion did not 

seek expedited relief or even briefing, despite the looming June 10-discovery 

deadline. These shortcomings are especially noteworthy in light of the Court’s 

admonishment, in ruling on Griffin’s previous request, that “any further 

extensions are unlikely to be granted absent particularly extenuating 

circumstances.” (Am. Sched. Order at 1 (emphasis in original).) 

That said, while Griffin may not have been as diligent as he could have 

been, the Court nonetheless recognizes that Griffin’s predicament has indeed 

been occasioned by difficulties encountered by the Government’s refusal to 

supply discovery that the Court has ultimately determined should have been 

produced. Accordingly, and in recognition that it appears the Government is 

amenable to a shorter delay (Def.’s Resp. at 3 (noting that the Government had 

proposed an eighteen-day extension for the purpose of scheduling 

depositions)), the Court grants Griffin’s motion in small part (ECF No. 138). 

The Court extends the discovery deadline by an additional three weeks for the 

limited purpose of allowing extra time for Griffin to review the Government’s 

recently compelled production in preparation for the upcoming depositions and 

to reschedule those depositions, if necessary. Going forward, the parties are 

forewarned, absent circumstances amounting to a bona fide emergency, 

the Court will not consider further extensions.2

This action is thus reset for trial during the two-week trial period 

beginning on November 18, 2024. Calendar call will, accordingly, be held at 

9:00 a.m. on the preceding Tuesday, November 12, 2024, at the Wilkie D. 

Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse, 400 N. Miami Avenue, Courtroom 12-

3, Miami, Florida. A pretrial conference will be held immediately following 

calendar call only if requested by the parties in advance. 

1. The parties must comply with the following amended schedule: 

1 In reply, Griffin concedes a 60-day extension would suffice, “if necessary.” (Pl.’s Reply at 5.) 

2 Because moving the deadline for fact discovery necessarily impacts the dispositive-motion 

deadline, which, in turn, impacts the trial date, those related settings have been adjusted 

accordingly. On the other hand, Griffin does not indicate that either the expert-discovery 

deadlines or the deadline to mediate or consent to jurisdiction before the magistrate judge 

require enlargement and so those deadlines remain unchanged.

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2024 Page 2 of 5
passed Deadline to join additional parties or to amend pleadings.

completed Deadline to file joint interim status report.

completed

Deadline to file Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation, setting 

forth the name of the mediator, and the date, time, and 

location of the mediation, consistent with the Order of Referral 

to Mediation (which immediately follows the initial scheduling 

order).

June 10, 2024

(unchanged)

Deadline to submit joint notice indicating whether the parties 

consent to jurisdiction before the designated magistrate judge 

for purposes of final disposition.

Deadline to exchange expert witness summaries/reports 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). Rebuttal 

disclosures are permitted, and must conform to the deadline 

set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii).

(When a treating physician testifies regarding opinions formed and 

based upon observations made during the course of treatment, the 

treating physician need not produce a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report. By 

contrast, treating physicians offering opinions beyond those arising 

from treatment are experts from whom full Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports 

are required. See, Muzaffarr v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., No. 12-

61996-CIV, 2013 WL 3850848, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2013).)

July 1, 2024 Deadline to complete all fact discovery.

July 8, 2024

(unchanged)

Deadline to complete mediation, consistent with the Order of 

Referral to Mediation (which immediately follows the initial 

scheduling order).

July 15, 2024, 

2024 Deadline for the filing of all dispositive motions.

August 12, 

2024

(unchanged)

Deadline to complete all expert discovery.

September 17, 

2024

Deadline for the filing of pretrial motions, including motions in 

limine and Daubert motions.

October 21, 

2024

Deadline to file joint pretrial stipulation under Local Rule 

16.1(e) and pretrial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(a)(3).

November 4, 

2024 Deadline to file proposed jury instructions (if the matter is set 

for a jury trial) or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2024 Page 3 of 5
law (if the matter is set for a bench trial) consistent with Local 

Rule 16.1(k). 

2. References to documents in summary-judgment motions. When a party 

files a motion for summary judgment, the party must include the ECF number 

of any exhibits or other documents referred to in the motion or the 

accompanying statement of material facts (required by Local Rule 56.1). This 

means that if a document is not already on the record, a party will need to 

submit a Notice of Filing before he or she files the summary-judgment motion 

and the statement of material facts. 

3. Limit on motions in limine & Daubert motions. Each party is limited to 

filing one motion in limine and one Daubert motion. If a party cannot address 

his or her evidentiary issues or expert challenges in a 20-page motion, leave to 

exceed the page limitation will be granted upon a showing of good cause. The 

parties are reminded that motions in limine and Daubert motions must contain 

the Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) pre-filing conference and certification. 

4. Jury Instructions. The parties must submit their proposed jury 

instructions jointly, though they need not agree on each proposed instruction. 

Where both parties agree on a proposed instruction, that instruction must be 

set out in regular typeface. Instructions proposed only by a plaintiff must be 

underlined. Instructions proposed only by a defendant must be bold-faced. 

Every instruction must be supported by a citation of authority. The parties 

should use as a guide the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil 

Cases, including the directions to counsel, or the applicable state pattern jury 

instructions. The parties must jointly file their proposed jury instructions via 

CM/ECF, and must also submit their proposed jury instructions to the Court 

via e-mail at scola@flsd.uscourts.gov in Word format (.doc). 

5. Trial Exhibits. All trial exhibits must be pre-marked. Plaintiff’s exhibits 

must be marked numerically with the letter “P” as a prefix. Defendant’s 

exhibits must be marked alphabetically with the letter “D” as a prefix. A list 

setting out all exhibits must be submitted at the time of trial. This list must 

indicate the pre-marked identification label (e.g., P-1, or D-A) and must also 

include a brief description of the exhibit. 

6. Deposition Designations. Any party intending to use deposition 

testimony as substantive evidence must designate by line and page reference 

those portions in writing. The designations must be served on opposing counsel 

and filed with the Court 14 days before the deadline to file the joint pretrial 

stipulation. The adverse party must serve and file any objections and any 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2024 Page 4 of 5
cross-designations within seven days. The initial party then has seven days to 

serve and file objections to the cross-designations. 

7. Voir Dire Questions. The Court will require each prospective juror to 

complete a brief written questionnaire prior to the commencement of 

questioning in the courtroom. Any party may submit up to five proposed, casespecific questions to be included in the questionnaire. The proposed questions 

must be filed with the Court at the time of the filing of the joint pretrial 

stipulation, and must also be submitted to the Court via e-mail at 

scola@flsd.uscourts.gov in Word format (.doc). 

8. Notification of juror misconduct. Every party has an affirmative duty to 

notify the Court immediately of any possible juror misconduct or any 

information that might possibly reflect on a juror’s ability to serve. Immediate 

notification is required to allow the Court the opportunity to address the issue, 

including questioning the juror and, if necessary, discharging the juror and 

seating an alternate juror. In any trial lasting more than five days, the Court 

imposes an affirmative duty on both sides to conduct all reasonable 

investigations of juror misconduct, including statements provided during voir 

dire, and to advise the Court immediately of any discovered misconduct. Any 

party who fails to conduct a reasonable investigation in this situation and later 

discovers an incidence of juror misconduct has waived his, her, or its right to 

rely on that misconduct in a motion before this Court. 

9. Settlement Conference Before Magistrate Judge. The parties may, at any 

time, file a motion requesting a settlement conference before United States 

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. The Court encourages the parties to 

consider a confidential settlement conference with Judge Goodman, especially 

if the parties believe there is a meaningful chance of reaching an early, 

amicable resolution of their dispute. 

10. Settlement Notification. If this matter is settled, counsel are 

directed to inform the Court promptly via telephone (305-523-5140) and/or email (scola@flsd.uscourts.gov). 

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on May 30, 2024. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 Robert N. Scola, Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2024 Page 5 of 5