Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

THE BARTRAM, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-28-SPM-GRJ

LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation,

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Arizona corporation, and

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Georgia corporation

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File

Reply To (1) Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants’ Motion To Extend Mediation

Deadline; And (2) Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response To Defendants’ Motion To Extend

Mediation Deadline. (Doc. 92.) Defendants recently filed a Motion To Extend

Mediation Deadline in this case, requesting the Court to extend the mediation deadline

in this case from the current June 30, 2011 deadline until October 30, 2011 in order to

allow the Defendants the opportunity to depose Plaintiff’s corporate representative and

then prepare a motion for summary judgment based upon that deposition testimony. 

(Doc. 87.) 

Plaintiff has filed two separate responses to the Defendants’ motion to extend

the mediation deadline. (Docs. 88 & 91.) In its responses, Plaintiff advises the Court

that a mediation session has been scheduled in the companion case to this action,

Case No. 1:09-cv-254-SPM-GRJ (the “Contractor Action”), for June 22 and 23, 2011 in

Case 1:10-cv-00028-SPM-GRJ Document 94 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Orlando. Plaintiff also advises that, although Plaintiff has arranged for its corporate

representative to be available to be deposed by Defendants’ counsel between June 7

and 10, 2011, that Defendants’ counsel has informed Plaintiff’s counsel that

Defendants’ counsel will be unavailable to depose Plaintiff’s corporate representative

during that time period. Plaintiff requests that the Court require Defendants to: (1)

depose Plaintiff’s corporate representative between June 7 and 10, 2011 or

alternatively be prevented from ordering the transcript of the deposition of Plaintiff’s

representative for use in preparing for Plaintiff’s deposition and (2) participate in the

mediation scheduled in Orlando for the Contractor Action on June 22 and 23, 2011.

(Doc. 91.)

Defendants seek the Court’s permission to file a reply to Plaintiff’s Response To

Defendants’ Motion To Extend Mediation Deadline (Doc. 88) and Plaintiff’s

Supplemental Response To Defendants’ Motion To Extend Mediation (Doc. 91). In

support of this request, Defendants suggest that a reply would clarify the scheduling

and factual issues raised in Plaintiff’s two responses to Defendants’ motion to extend

the mediation deadline. 

Based upon the foregoing the the Court determines that a reply by Defendants

to Plaintiff’s two responses would assist the Court in ruling on Defendants’ motion to

extend the mediation deadline in this case.

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File Reply To (1) Plaintiff’s Response

To Defendants’ Motion To Extend Mediation Deadline And (2) Plaintiff’s

Supplemental Response To Defendants’ Motion To Extend Mediation

Deadline (Doc. 92) is hereby GRANTED. 

Case No: 1:10-cv-28-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00028-SPM-GRJ Document 94 Filed 04/25/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

2. Counsel for Defendants shall file a reply to Plaintiff’s Response To

Defendants’ Motion To Extend Mediation Deadline (Doc. 88) and

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response To Defendants’ Motion To Extend

Mediation Deadline (Doc. 91) on or before April 29, 2011. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2011. 

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-28-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00028-SPM-GRJ Document 94 Filed 04/25/11 Page 3 of 3