The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William McCurine, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ) ORDER ) [ECF No. 50.]
On August 21, 2012, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference. [ECF Nos. 45, 47.] After hearing from counsel of record, the Court: (1) vacated the deadline to file motions for summary judgment pending further order of the Court; and (2) issued a supplemental briefing schedule on the issue of whether the Court should stay this litigation or modify the scheduling order in light of Defendants' planned modifications to the subject property. [ECF No. 46.] After careful consideration of the parties' positions at the telephonic discovery conference as well as the parties' supplemental briefing, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. [ECF No. 50.]
The Court will only modify dates set forth in a scheduling order upon a showing of good cause by the moving party. Specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 states:
(1) Scheduling Order. Except in categories of actions exempted by local rule, the district judge-or a magistrate judge when authorized by local rule-must issue a scheduling order:
(A) after receiving the report from the parties under Rule 26(f); or
(B) after consulting with the parties' attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference or by telephone, mail, or other means.
(2) Time to Issue. The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but in any event within the earlier of 120 days after any Defendant has been served with the complaint or 90 days after any Defendant has appeared.
(3) Contents of the Order.
(A) Required Contents. The scheduling order must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.
(B) Permitted Contents. The scheduling order may:
(I) modify the timing of disclosures under Rules ...