The opinion
United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Jiangmen Benlida Printed Circuit )
Co., Ltd., Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-60125-Civ-Scola
)
Circuitronix, LLC, Defendant. )
Order Adopting Report and Recommendations and Second Amended
Scheduling Order
In this case, now well into its third year of litigation, the parties’ dispute
revolves around whether Defendant Circuitronix, LLC, owes Plaintiff Jiangmen
Benlida Printed Circuit Co., Ltd., millions of dollars for unpaid invoices for
circuit boards, or whether Benlida actually owes Circuitronix over a million
dollars. Nearly a year ago, in June 2022, the parties jointly announced they
had reached an agreement, resolving their disputes. (Med. Rep., ECF No. 80;
Jt. Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 81.) Over the next several months, the parties
repeatedly sought extensions of the deadline to file their dismissal paperwork
(ECF Nos. 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 102), each time advising the
Court of various complications, complexities, and hurdles standing in the way
of final resolution. The parties explained that part of the delay related to the
parties’ attempt to negotiate a revised manufacturing agreement that would
govern the parties’ relationship going forward. Their extensive negotiations
ultimately failed, culminating in Benlida’s motion to reopen the case and
enforce the parties’ purported settlement agreement. (Pl.’ Mot., ECF No. 104.)
The Court referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan
Goodman. (ECF No. 105.) After extensive briefing and a lengthy evidentiary
hearing, Judge Goodman recommends denying the motion to enforce but
reopening the case so that the parties can resume their litigation. (Rep. & Rec.,
ECF No. 144.) Since then, the parties have filed a joint proposed revised
scheduling plan, advising that neither party objects to Judge Goodman’s report
and recommendations. (Jt. Plan, ECF No. 150.) After careful review of the
report and mindful of the parties’ desire to proceed with their litigation, the
Court adopts Judge Goodman’s report in its entirety (ECF No. 144), finding it
thorough, cogent, and compelling, thus granting in part and denying in part
Benlida’s motion (ECF No. 104), and directing the Clerk to reopen this case.
In conjunction with the recommencement of this litigation, the parties
propose a new scheduling plan that they say “strike[s] an appropriate balance
between the interest of resolving the case quickly and providing sufficient time
to complete the required work, in an orderly manner.” (Jt. Plan at 2.) In light of
previous enlargements of time and repeated admonishments from the Court
regarding the protracted nature of the litigation in this case, however, the
Court finds the parties’ proposal unjustifiably drawn-out.
For example, when the parties in this case announced their settlement,
only three weeks of discovery remained. The parties now propose extending
discovery for nearly five more months. Further, although the Court acquiesced,
in its last scheduling order, to an enlargement of the dispositive-motion
deadline, shortening the period between the filing of dispositive motions and
the trial date to less than four months, as a matter of course, runs afoul of the
Court’s initial order and the Court’s own scheduling requirements. (Order, ECF
No. 5, 2.)
While the Court has previously accommodated many of the parties’
requests for extensions, it has repeatedly warned that further extensions would
be unlikely to be granted “absent particularly extenuating circumstances.”
(Sch. Order, ECF No. 1, 1; Am. Sch. Order, ECF No. 70, 1.) The parties have
barely set forth extenuating circumstances, never mind particularly
extenuating circumstances, that warrant further delay.
Accordingly, the Court sets this case for trial during the two-week trial
period beginning on October 10, 2023. Calendar call will be held at 9:00 a.m.
on the preceding Tuesday, October 3, 2023, 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 schedule:
passed Deadline to join additional parties or to amend pleadings.
completed
Deadline to file joint interim status report.
(untimely)
completed
Deadline to file Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation.
(untimely)
May 18, 2023
Deadline to complete all fact discovery.1
(extended)
1 To the extent the parties are in agreement about the need for further discovery,
beyond the discovery deadline, they may stipulate, between themselves, to conduct
discovery out of time. Nothing prevents them from doing so—as provided for by Rule
29. They do so, however, at their peril: that is, the parties are free to agree on
supplemental discovery, all the way up to trial, but with the understanding that,
ordinarily, Court intervention will be unavailable in the event of a dispute.
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).)
June 1, 2023
Deadline for the filing of all dispositive motions.
(extended)
completed Deadline to complete mediation.
July 20, 2023
(extended) Deadline to complete all expert discovery.
August 8, 2023 Deadline for the filing of pretrial motions, including motions in
(extended) limine and Daubert motions.
September 12, Deadline to file joint pretrial stipulation under Local Rule
2023 16.1(e) and pretrial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of
(extended) Civil Procedure 26(a)(3).
Deadline to file proposed jury instructions (if the matter is set
September 26,
for a jury trial) or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
2023
law (if the matter is set for a bench trial) consistent with Local
(extended)
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
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, case-
specific 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 e-
mail (scola@flsd.uscourts.gov).
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on i 4, (Lo 7
obert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge