*1 THIS CAUSE is before me following a status conference held on January 16, 2024. All parties appeared represented by counsel. Having heard from all counsel and having reviewed the parties’ joint status report, DE 96, I find as follows regarding the preliminary injunction proceedings[1] going forward.

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint alleging that a corporate Defendant competitor and five of Plaintiff's former employees had engaged in improper diversion of Plaintiff's customers and trade secret misappropriation. DE 14. On November 13, 2023, Judge Martinez entered a detailed Order granting Plaintiff's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and enjoining Defendants from:

DE 57. The TRO was originally set to expire at 5:00 P.M. on November 23, 2023. Id.

On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Expedited Motion to Convert the TRO into a Preliminary Injunction or, Alternatively, Extend the TRO (“Expedited Motion”) for at least 21 days pending ongoing discovery and Plaintiff's “forthcoming” motion for preliminary injunction. DE 65 at 10. On November 22, 2023, Judge Martinez partially granted the relief sought by extending the TRO to 5:00 P.M. on December 7, 2023. DE 76.

On November 27, 2023, Judge Martinez referred the Expedited Motion and all related matters to me for appropriate disposition. DE 78. Two days later, on November 29, 2023, I issued an Order setting a preliminary injunction hearing for December 13, 2023, together with an associated briefing schedule. DE 79.

In the meantime, on November 21, 2023, I issued two Orders following a discovery hearing on a motion to compel centered on the imaging of certain devices in response to discovery requests. DE 69, DE 70. In addition to establishing deadlines for the exchange of specified discovery, I set a status conference for December 5, 2023 to discuss the parties’ progress in ongoing discovery. DE 68.

On November 30, 2023, former counsel for corporate Defendant Heyden Supply and four of the individual Defendants filed an emergency motion to withdraw citing a conflict of interest. DE 82. The following day, December 1, 2023, Judge Martinez granted the motion, stayed the case for 45 days, and terminated all pending motions and deadlines to give Defendants time to retain new counsel. DE 86, DE 91.

On December 12, 2023, new counsel appeared for corporate Defendant Heyden Supply. DE 89-90. That same day, Judge Martinez issued an Order adopting my recommendation to extend the TRO during the stay and until such time that the preliminary injunction hearing is held before me. DE 88. On January 11, 2024, new counsel appeared for four individual Defendants. DE 93-94.[2]

*2 I thereafter held a status conference on January 16, 2024. After hearing from counsel, I issued a report recommending that the stay be lifted and that this case be reopened. DE 98.

In a joint status report filed January 15, 2024, DE 96, the parties identified several disputed issues. As I stated on the record at the status conference, most of these issues pertain to discovery generally in this case and must therefore be raised by appropriate motion after the parties have exhausted their good faith conferral efforts.

At this juncture, my primary tasks are (1) to determine the proper scope of discovery for purposes of determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue, and (2) to reset the preliminary injunction briefing schedule and hearing before me. Below, I address each task in turn.

I. Requested Discovery Related to the Preliminary Injunction

As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize, district courts have “broad discretion” with respect to scheduling the discovery process. Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion ... to dictate the sequence of discovery”); Johnson v. Bd. of Regents, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001) (district courts enjoy “broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate a district court ordering expedited discovery in appropriate cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2) (authorizing courts to expedite depositions); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) (authorizing courts to expedite answers to interrogatories); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2) (authorizing courts to expedite responses to requests for production); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (authorizing courts to expedite responses to requests for admissions).

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not established a standard governing expedited discovery, but “several district courts within the Eleventh Circuit have expressly used a general ‘good cause’ standard when confronted with [such] requests[.]” Davis v. Collins, 2018 WL 6163154, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2018); TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. SCS Supply Chain LLC, 330 F.R.D. 613, 615 (S.D. Fla. 2019). A showing of “good cause” may be found where “the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Holden Prop. Servs., LLC, 299 F.R.D. 692, 694 (S.D. Fla. 2014). To determine if good cause exists, courts generally consider the following factors: “(1) whether a motion for preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the requested discovery; (3) the reason(s) for requesting expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the opponent to comply with the request for discovery; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request is made.” Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 9.669 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Polk County, 2016 WL 172984, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2016).

Here, discovery is ongoing and the parties report having exchanged thousands of documents and other relevant information to date. For purposes of the preliminary injunction proceedings, Plaintiff seeks an Order requiring (1) all Defendants to provide a verified certification identifying the customers each Defendant concedes is covered by the TRO, (2) all five individual Defendants to provide all emails from their personal accounts or text messages from their phone prior to their departures from Plaintiff containing communications with any customers identified by Plaintiff and Defendants as being subject to the TRO, and (3) individual Defendant Black's business account emails during the time he was briefly employed with Defendant Heyden Supply. In addition, the parties all seek Court authorization to depose the individuals who provided affidavits relating to the prior TRO briefing.

*3 I agree that good cause exists to require the production of the three categories of information sought by Plaintiff. The requested information is relevant to the preliminary injunction determination and should be produced prior to the preliminary injunction hearing. I disagree that good cause exists to expedite the requested affiant depositions. After analyzing the five factors above, the parties have not demonstrated good cause for these depositions to be completed prior to the hearing. Although a motion for preliminary injunction is forthcoming in this case, I see no need to expedite the depositions of at least nine affiants prior to the hearing. These affiants may be examined at the hearing regarding the contents of their written affidavits. To require their depositions in a limited timeframe will likely impose a substantial burden and expense on all parties concerned. I ultimately do not find good cause for this requested discovery on an expedited basis.

II. Preliminary Injunction Briefing and Hearing

The standard for granting both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are the same. Gissendaner v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr., 779 F.3d 1276, 1280 (11th Cir. 2015). A plaintiff is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief if it shows through evidence: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003). Preliminary injunctions are “drastic” and “extraordinary” remedies, not to be issued unless the movant has “clearly established” the burden of persuasion on each element. Id. at 1210. They are the exception, not the rule. Id.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), a TRO “expires at the time after entry—not to exceed 14 days—that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). A pending hearing for a preliminary injunction can constitute good cause. See U.S. v. Aid Med. Equip., Inc., 2005 WL 8155878, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2005), report and recommendation adopted, 2005 WL 8155858 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2005) (“To be sure there are limitations on extending such an order, but one of them is where, as hear, there is a pending motion for preliminary injunction to be heard.”).

Here, the current TRO has been in place now for over two months – 66 days to be precise. By their very nature, TROs are intended to be temporary measures. And while the withdrawal of counsel necessitated extensions of time, all parties are now ably represented by counsel and relevant discovery has been and will continue to be exchanged. Thus, upon careful consideration of the record and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, I find it best to set the below expedited schedule and preliminary injunction hearing.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 18th day of January, 2024.