Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bennett v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- FRESNO DIVISION


July 29, 2010

TODD BENNETT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND MOTION DEADLINES (Docket No. 24)

On July 23, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the Court modify the existing scheduling order in this matter. Although the parties recite that the proposed extended deadlines do not impact the pre-trial conference date or the trial date, this is not the case. The dates the parties propose do not allow adequate time between the dispositive motion filing deadline, the hearing on any dispositive motion filed, and the pre-trial conference and trial. Because all proposed deadlines are contingent upon other prior deadlines, there is nothing in the newly proposed schedule that the Court can accommodate. The type of request that can be considered is one that preserves the filing and hearing dates for all matters set before the Court and provides adequate time for the Court to consider the matters before it. The Court will consider a renewed request if the parties modify their stipulation accordingly.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' stipulated request for an extension of discovery and motion deadlines is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100729

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.