The Court will address these motions separately below.

I. The Corporate Defendants' Motion to Compel

On October 30, 2017, the Corporate Defendants filed a Motion to Compel requesting that Plaintiff Thomas Cottone produce his cell phone in order to allow Defendants to review certain text messages. However, this motion was filed in violation of this Court's Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation [Doc. 3], which provides, in pertinent part:

Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation, Section II.D.iii. The Corporate Defendants failed to comply with the Court's informal process for resolving discovery disputes by filing a motion to compel.

Furthermore, it is unclear from the record before the Court whether the Corporate Defendants' motion has been rendered moot by Plaintiff's subsequent production of some of the text messages at issue in the parties' dispute. See Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Compel [Doc. 123] at 2 (“On November 1, 2017, [Plaintiff Thomas Cottone] produced the text messages between himself and his sister Mildred in their original format as requested by Defendants.”). To the extent a dispute remains ongoing, it appears to concern additional text messages produced after the Corporate Defendants' Motion to Compel was filed, which were identified for the first time by the Corporate Defendants in their reply in support of their original motion. See id.

*2 Accordingly, the Corporate Defendants' Motion to Compel [Doc. 115] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent any dispute remains ongoing concerning this issue, the parties shall contact Ms. Smilley to schedule a conference call at which counsel for all parties shall be available to participate in accordance with this Court's Standing Order. Each party shall submit by e-mail to Ms. Smilley no more than a two-page summary of the discovery issues and each side's position with respect to the dispute(s) at least two days prior to the telephone conference. A Motion to Compel shall not be filed unless the Court is unable to resolve the dispute telephonically.

II. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order

On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff Thomas Cottone filed a motion requesting that the Court amend the Amended Scheduling Order [Doc. 111] to extend the discovery period in this case by thirty days. Pl.'s Mot. to Amend Scheduling Order at 1. In support of this request, Plaintiff represents that he would be prevented from timely deposing five “critical witnesses” by the December 22, 2017, deadline set forth in the Amended Scheduling Order for these depositions, due to the Corporate Defendants' alleged unwillingness to produce certain documents pursuant to the Court's October 11, 2017, Order on Plaintiffs' motion to compel.[1] Id. at 1-2. In the absence of these documents, Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to properly prepare for the depositions in question. Id. at 3. However, as of the date of this Order, it appears that the depositions of all but one of the five witnesses at issue—Elizabeth Salvati—have been taken, although it is unclear whether Plaintiffs would seek to re-depose any of the witnesses at issue were they to prevail in their ongoing discovery dispute with the Corporate Defendants.

Although Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not been diligent in scheduling the depositions at issue, see Defs.' Joint Resp. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Amend Scheduling Order [Doc. 128], the Court finds that, at a minimum, the parties' ongoing discovery dispute—which appears to implicate Plaintiff's ability to fully depose the witnesses in question—constitutes good cause for granting Plaintiff the requested extension. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.”); FED. R. CIV. P. 16, advisory committee note, 1983 Amendment, Subdivision (b) (“[T]he court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”); see, e.g., Williams v. The Art Inst. of Atlanta, No. l:06-CV-0285-CC/AJB, 2006 WL 3694649, at *17 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 1, 2006)(finding good cause to extend discovery where discovery remained outstanding and depositions had yet to be taken).

Accordingly, Plaintiff Thomas Cottone's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order for an Extension of the Discovery Period [Doc. 122] is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that the close of discovery is extended until February 15, 2018, or thirty (30) days beyond the date of the conference call currently scheduled for January 16, 2018, for the limited purpose of deposing the witnesses identified in the Amended Scheduling Order. Summary judgment motions must be filed on or before Thursday, March 15, 2018. All other deadlines remain unchanged.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants Advance Medical Designs, Inc.; Advance Medical Funding Corporation; 1241 Atlanta Industrial Drive, LLC; 1120 Atlanta Industrial Drive, LLC; and 1141 AMG, LLC's Motion to Compel [Doc. 115] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

*3 It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Thomas Cottone's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order for an Extension of the Discovery Period [Doc. 122] is GRANTED. By virtue of the Court's Order, the close of discovery is extended until February 15, 2018, or thirty (30) days beyond the date of the conference call currently scheduled for January 16, 2018, for the limited purpose of deposing the witnesses identified in the Amended Scheduling Order. Summary judgment motions must be filed on or before Thursday, March 15, 2018. All other deadlines remain unchanged.[2]

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2018.

A conference call concerning this dispute, which has yet to be resolved, is currently scheduled for January 16, 2018.

Defendants Anthony J. Cottone and John M. Cottone have also filed a Motion to Supplement Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 65 and 66 [Doc. 125]. Although the time for doing so has now run. Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition to Defendants' motion. Accordingly, for good cause shown, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.