Page 1 of 3

 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

THE BARTRAM, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company,

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

The matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration of

May 10, 2011 Order. (Doc. 97.) Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 101) and on May 24,

2011 the Court conducted a telephonic hearing to address the motion. For the reasons

discussed on the record at the hearing, which are fully incorporated in this Order, and

as summarized below Defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration of May 10, 2011 Order

is due to be granted as limited in this order.

 Defendants request the Court to reconsider its previous order directing the

Defendants to attend the mediation scheduled for June 22 and 23, 2011 in the

Contractor Action, Case No. 1:09-cv-254-SPM-GRJ (the “Contractor Action”). (Doc.

96.) Among the reasons advanced by the Defendants in support of their request for

reconsideration, is a conflict with Defendants’ counsel on June 23 and 24, 2011, the

Case 1:10-cv-00028-SPM-GRJ Document 104 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

dates of the mediation. Defendants’ counsel advised the Court that she is scheduled to

take depositions in New York during the relevant period of time and that her family is

scheduled to accompany her to New York so they can visit with her family. In addition,

at least two of the adjusters for the Defendants are scheduled to be on prepaid

vacations during the relevant period of time. 

Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ request arguing that Defendants’ counsel has not

been cooperative in scheduling the mediation and that the Plaintiff will incur

unnecessary additional expense if it must also attend mediation with the Defendants

separately. While the Court reconfirms the view it expressed in it May 10, 2011 Order

that “a global mediation in this case in coordination withe the Contractor Action will be

beneficial and is the most efficient and cost effective method of moving this case and

the Contractor Action towards a resolution,” the Court declines to force Defendants’

counsel to cancel her family trip so she can attend the mediation. As a practical matter

the Court recognizes that due to the complexity of this case the mediator may have to

engage in multiple mediation sessions to achieve a full or partial resolution of the

issues. Although the Defendants may not have the benefit of participating in the

mediation on June 22 and 23, so long as the Defendants participate in a further

mediation session shortly thereafter the Defendants will still be able to participate in a

meaningful way in the mediation discussion. For this to occur the Defendants will be

required to schedule and attend a mediation with the same mediator on or before July

15, 2011.

Although the Court would prefer for the Defendants to participate in the

mediation scheduled for June 22 and 23 the Court concludes that on balance the

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

Case 1:10-cv-00028-SPM-GRJ Document 104 Filed 05/24/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

conflict raised by Defendants’ counsel is a sufficient reason for the Court to reconsider

its May 10, 2011 Order.

 Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration Of May 10, 2011 Order (Doc. 97) is

GRANTED to the extent that Defendants shall not be required to attend the June 22

and 23, 2011 mediation scheduled in the Contractor Action because of the previously

scheduled travel plans of Defendants’ counsel. 

2. Defendants shall be required, however, to participate in a mediation with the

Plaintiff no later than July 15, 2011. The parties are, therefore, directed to coordinate

the scheduling of a mediation session with Larry Watson of Upchurch Watson White &

Max to be held on or before July 15, 2011. In the event that the parties are unable to

schedule a mutually convenient mediation session prior to July 15, 2011, then the

parties shall schedule the mediation session for July 20, 2011, the time that is

currently scheduled for the deposition of Plaintiff’s corporate representative(s).

DONE AND ORDERED this 24 day of May, 2011. th

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 104 Filed 05/24/11 Page 3 of 3