UNITED STATES FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF HAMILTON ROOFING, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Case No. 6:20-cv-2360-CEM-GJK United States District Court, M.D. Florida Filed March 21, 2022 Counsel Carly Marie Newman, Paula Marie Bird, Rosemary Hanna Hayes, Hayes & Newman, PL, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff. Callie Elizabeth Waers, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Orlando, FL, Kristina Lynn Marsh, Ryan J. Weeks, Justine Elias, Tampa, FL, Jonathan W. Gonzalez, Pro Hac Vice, Susan Childers North, Pro Hac Vice, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Williamsburg, VA, Christina M. Flores, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Chicago, IL, Katrina Marino, Martin Hild, P.A., Maitland, FL, Patrick Kevin Burns, Pro Hac Vice, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant. Baker, David A., United States Magistrate Judge Order1 *1 This cause came on for consideration on the following motions: MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 60) FILED: January 13, 2022 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. MOTION: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING AND/OR AMENDING PLEADINGS, DEFENDANT'S EXPERT REPORT DIS[ ]CLOSURE AND COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND TO SET RULE 16 CONFERENCE (Doc. No. 65) FILED: February 2, 2022 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S PARTLY UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO JOIN A PARTY AND AMEND COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 67) FILED: February 10, 2022 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. On February 22, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the following motions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 60 (the “Motion for Sanctions”); (2) Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time for Filing and/or Amending Pleadings, Defendant's Expert Report Disclosure and Completion of Discovery or in the Alternative Motion for Continuance and to Set Rule 16 Conference, Doc. No. 65 (the “Motion for Extension of Time”); and (3) Plaintiff's Partly Unopposed Motion for Leave to Join a Party and Amend Complaint, Doc. No. 67 (the “Motion to Amend”). On that same day, the Court ordered the parties to mediate on or before March 2, 2022, and, if the case was not resolved, for the corporate designee of Defendant to appear for its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on or before March 16, 2022. Doc. No. 82. On March 4, 2022, the mediator filed a notice stating that the parties attended mediation but reached an impasse. Doc. No. 83. In the Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff asks that sanctions be imposed for Defendant's failure to appear at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Doc. No. 60 at 2. Plaintiff asks the Court to order mediation within thirty days with the deposition to occur thereafter if the mediation is unsuccessful and to award fees. Id. at 3. As stated above, the parties attended mediation and Defendant was ordered to appear for its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on or before March 16, 2022. Doc. Nos. 82, 83. As Plaintiff obtained the relief requested, the Motion for Sanctions is denied. The denial is without prejudice, however, to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion for sanctions upon completion of discovery, if warranted. In the Motion for Extension of Time, Defendant requests that the deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) be extended for an undefined period. Doc. No. 65. Defendant argues that extensions are warranted because there has not yet been a ruling on its motions to dismiss or change venue and that delays have been caused by COVID and scheduling issues. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9. The Motion for Extension of Time contains no specific information regarding the scheduling issues or demonstrating that Defendant is diligently trying to complete discovery before the deadline. Doc. No. 65. Because Defendant fails to demonstrate good cause for extending the deadlines in the CMSO, especially in light of the deadlines established in the related proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia that include dispositive motions and trial deadlines earlier than those in this case, Doc. No. 68-1, the Motion for Extension of Time is denied. *2 Finally, in the Motion to Amend, Plaintiff asks for permission to file an amended complaint adding RS&H, the project architect, as a defendant, and asserting a claim of professional negligence against it. Doc. No. 67 at 10. “The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of the district court.” Laurie v. Ala. Ct. of Crim. App., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As a result, the court must provide substantial justification if it denies a timely filed motion for leave to amend. Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274. A court has substantial justification to deny a timely motion for leave to amend if it finds: 1) there has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; 2) the amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; or 3) the amendment would be futile. Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The Motion to Amend is untimely. The deadline for amending the pleadings and joining parties was May 14, 2021, Doc. No. 31 at 1, and the Motion to Amend was filed on February 10, 2022, Doc. No. 67. Although Defendant certainly caused inexcusable delays, Plaintiff should have been (or was) aware of potential additional claims long ago. Thus, the Motion to Amend is denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 60) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Motion for Extension of Time and the Motion to Amend (Doc. Nos. 65, 67) are DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on March 21, 2022. Footnotes [1] Magistrate Judge David A. Baker substituting for Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly.