Doe v. Academir Charter Schools, Inc.
1:23-cv-23004
| S.D. Fla. | Aug 21, 2024Background
- This case involves an alleged sexual assault of a minor, Jane Doe, on the premises of charter schools operated by Defendants.
- Defendants served their first discovery requests to Plaintiff on August 8, 2024—just 21 days before the scheduled discovery deadline.
- The Court had previously extended the discovery deadline to August 29, 2024 and expressly stated no further extensions would be granted.
- Defendants moved to further extend the discovery deadline or, alternatively, to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests.
- Plaintiff objected, arguing the discovery requests were untimely and that Defendants had not shown good cause for an extension.
- The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres for decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extend discovery deadline | No good cause for more extensions; deadline already extended | Needs more time to get responses to discovery | Denied; no good cause or diligence shown |
| Order compelling responses to discovery | Discovery requests are untimely under Local Rules | Plaintiff should be compelled to respond | Denied; Local Rules do not require response |
| Compliance with scheduling order and diligence | Defendants lacked diligence in serving timely discovery | No explanation for delay given | Defendants’ lack of diligence precludes extension |
| Applicability of Local Rules on Discovery | Local Rules do not obligate response past deadline | No valid argument regarding rule applicability | Plaintiff need not respond after deadline lapses |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998) (good cause under Rule 16 requires diligence; court may deny schedule modification for lack of diligence)
- Esys Latin Am., Inc. v. Intel Corp., 290 F.R.D. 563 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (extension denied when no good cause or reason for delay)