1574 (11th Cir.1991). Third, the panel reasonably could have decided that further delay would be inequitable. Laws waited more than three years (until only two months before the scheduled hearing) to institute any discovery. Although Laws was ultimately unsatisfied with Morgan Stanley’s responses, Morgan Stanley did respond to his request in a timely fashion. Laws, however, neglected moving for a continuance until the day before the hearing even though he knew in advance that he would be receiving discovery on the eve of arbitration. Accordingly, the panel may have concluded that Laws— having waited for more than three years before initiating discovery — was responsible for his situation. Further delay may have been unfair to Morgan Stanley. See El Dorado Sch. Dist., 247 F.3d at 848 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Laws’s own motion for continuance
holding contract to sell a project which contained no time limits was to be performed within a reasonable time as determined by the court based on all the evidence holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision holding as such and noting that all other circuits that have considered the issue have determined that a plaintiff may raise the retaliation claim for the first time in federal court holding that the arbitrator reasonably could have determined that postponement was inappropriate because the parties had expended considerable time effort and money based on the hearing dates holding that magistrate judge could without consent of parties hold a pretrial hearing and issue a report and recommendation based on the findings made