Defendant Opposes Expert Discovery Extensions in FTSA Case

“Delay” is the watchword of the complaint in which plaintiff Maria Fernanda Soto Leigue alleges that Keiser University violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and that she and members of the potential class are entitled to relief, said the school’s response Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-22307) in opposition to her Dec. 16 motion to modify the case’s scheduling order. The plaintiff alleges that, due to its high student turnover rate, which ranks in the top 10 among private U.S. universities, Keiser is forced to implement aggressive telemarketing strategies to recruit new students and those practices caused it to run afoul of the FTSA (see 2210310022). Her Dec. 16 motion asked for a one-month extension in the deadlines for exchanging expert witness and rebuttal witness reports on class certification. “The record is clear that Keiser is not responsible” for the plaintiff’s lack of diligence, yet she “continues to refuse to take responsibility for her own failure to prosecute her claims,” said the school. The plaintiff “has had sufficient time and sufficient information to diligently initiate the relevant discovery,” said Keiser. Her failure to timely obtain the information she claims her expert needs “is solely an issue of her own making,” it said. “Good cause does not exist to modify the scheduling order.”