Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE
LLC, HACHETTE BOOK
GROUP, INC., HARPERCOLLINS
PUBLISHERS LLC,
MACMILLAN PUBLISHING
GROUP, LLC, SIMON &
SCHUSTER, LLC,
SOURCEBOOKS LLC, THE
AUTHORS GUILD, JULIA
ALVAREZ, JOHN GREEN,
LAURIE HALSE ANDERSON,
JODI PICOULT, ANGIE
THOMAS, HEIDI KELLOGG and
JUDITH ANNE HAYES,
Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 6:24-cv-1573-CEM-RMN BEN GIBSON, RYAN PETTY,
ESTHER BYRD, GRAZIE P
CHRISTIE, KELLY GARCIA,
MARYLYNN MAGAR, TERESA
JACOBS, ANGIE GALLO,
MARIA SALAMANCA, ALICIA
FARRANT, PAM GOULD, VICKI-
ELAINE FELDER, KAREN
CASTOR DENTEL, MELISSA
BYRD, JAMIE HAYNES, ANITA
BURNETTE, RUBEN COLON,
CARL PERSIS, and JESSIE
THOMPSON,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Amended Case Management Report (Doc. 75). The United States Magistrate Judge held a preliminary pretrial conference on the matter (Min. Entry, Dec. 10, 2024 Hr’g, Doc. 90) and issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 93), recommending that the Court enter a Case Management and Scheduling Order that sets the deadlines indicated in the Amended Case Management Report, ( id. at 3). Plaintiffs filed an Objection (Doc. 95).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), when a party makes a timely objection, the Court shall review de novo any portions of a magistrate judge’s R&R concerning specific proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review “require[s] independent consideration of factual issues based on the record.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga. , 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Here, as opposed to entering a Case Management and Scheduling Order that sets the deadlines indicated in the Amended Case Management Report, Plaintiffs “request that the February 4, 202[5] deadline for completing discovery and filing any motion to compel be extended by two weeks until February 18, 202[5].” (Doc. 95 at 1). Plaintiffs make this request to “heed[ ] Judge Norway’s comment that some *3 additional time may be advisable.” ( Id. ). This proposed modification is unopposed by Defendants. ( Id. at 1, 2).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 93) is ADOPTED as modified herein.
2. The Court shall enter a Case Management and Scheduling Order that sets the deadlines indicated in the Amended Case Management Report with the modification that the deadline for completing discovery and filing any motion to compel be extended until February 18, 2025.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 9, 2025.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record