The opinion of the court was delivered by: /s/ Sheila K. Oberto ie14hj United States Magistrate Judge
On November 9, 2010, the parties submitted a request for a schedule modification extending all discovery deadlines in the case. On November 10, 2010, this request was denied because it was not supported by good cause.
On November 29, 2010, the parties renewed their request for a modification to the schedule stating that, although the parties had been diligent in completing discovery, the discovery in the case generated "thousands of pages of relevant evidence that  led to the need for additional depositions and discovery." (Doc. 27-1 ¶ 3.) Therefore, the parties request that the discovery deadlines be extended as follows:
1. All non-expert discovery December 10, 2010
2. Expert Disclosure December 23, 2010
3. Supp. Expert Disclosure January 14, 2011
4. Expert Discovery January 31, 2011
The obvious problem with these proposed dates is that altering the schedule as proposed renders the remaining dates in the schedule unworkable. For example, the non-dispositive motion filing deadline has already expired on November 23, 2010. Further, the dispositive motion filing deadline will expire on December 10, 2010, long before the parties' proposed discovery deadlines would expire. Finally, extending the deadlines for filing pre-trial motions to a time following the proposed discovery deadlines would necessarily conflict with both the pre-trial and the trial date of February 14, 2011, and March 29, 2011, respectively. While the Court is willing to extend the parties additional time to complete discovery, the currently proposed schedule modification cannot be accommodated given the trial date in place.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' request for an extension of the discovery deadlines is DENIED without prejudice. The parties may renew their request for a schedule modification following the settlement conference set for December 7, 2010. At that time the parties may be better situated to determine what issues or parties remain, if any, and may be better equipped to propose a schedule that is both workable and comprehensive with respect to all the scheduling deadlines and dates.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...