ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE POST TRIAL MOTIONS AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR POST TRIAL MOTIONS
Following the jury verdict on April 8, 2009 in the above-captioned case, the Court instructed the parties to meet and confer to agree on a briefing schedule for post trial motions including the following two motions: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief; and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Reasonable Costs and Attorneys Fees.
The parties have been unable to reach agreement and have, therefore, left it up to this Court to set the briefing schedule. Plaintiffs have filed an "Application for Initial Ex Parte Extension of Time to File Motions for (1) Injunctive Relief and (2) Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs" ("Application for Extension of Time") (Docket at #285). Defendants' have opposed this Application (Docket at #291).
Plaintiffs have also filed a "Motion for Limited Discovery Related to Injunctive Relief Claims" ("Motion for Limited Discovery") (Docket at #290). Defendants intend to oppose this Motion and a briefing schedule for this Motion has been set by the Court. The Court will decide this Motion without a hearing.
The Court finds good cause exists for granting Plaintiffs' Application for Extension of Time. It does so without reaching a decision on Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Discovery. Should this Court decide to grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Discovery then it will modify the briefing schedule set forth below. If the court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Discovery, then the briefing schedule set forth below will remain in effect.
In their opposition to Plaintiffs' Application for Extension of Time, Defendants raise three arguments:
1. Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue a claim for injunctive relief;
2. This Court lacks jurisdiction to extend time for plaintiffs to file their motion for injunctive relief; and
3. There is no reason to grant a lengthy extension to conduct discovery.
The first argument is premature and will be considered by this Court only in connection with the actual Motion for Injunctive Relief. Obviously the Court is unable to decide the merits, or lack thereof, of this argument until the issue is fully briefed.
Defendants' third argument will be considered only in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Discovery. Its inclusion in Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Application for Extension of Time is redundant and unnecessary.
As to Defendants' second argument concerning the Court's alleged lack of jurisdiction, the Court finds this argument to be without merit. This argument undermines Defendants' agreement during the trial that Plaintiffs would be permitted to seek injunctive relief from the Court post trial in exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to dismiss certain claims rather than have these claims presented to the jury for a verdict (Docket at #272 at p. 3). Defendants attempt to invoke Rule 59(e) at this time must be rejected given the above-referenced Stipulation and Order.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Application to Extend Time to File Post Trial Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Injunctive Relief is GRANTED.
The following post trial motions shall be filed and briefed as follows:
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs' Opening Brief shall be filed by May 22, 2009. Defendants' Responsive Brief shall be filed by June 12, 2009. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief shall be filed by June 22, 2009. If the Court determines that a hearing on this Motion is ...