Agred Foundation v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 4:18-cv-4136. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20191106954
Visitors: 20
Filed: Nov. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 21). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on October 30, 2019. (ECF No. 17). The parties move the Court to extend Defendants' deadline to respond to the summary judgment motion to November 27, 2019. The parties further move to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply to December 13, 2019. Upon conside
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 21). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on October 30, 2019. (ECF No. 17). The parties move the Court to extend Defendants' deadline to respond to the summary judgment motion to November 27, 2019. The parties further move to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply to December 13, 2019. Upon consider..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 21). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on October 30, 2019. (ECF No. 17). The parties move the Court to extend Defendants' deadline to respond to the summary judgment motion to November 27, 2019. The parties further move to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply to December 13, 2019.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that it cannot grant the relief the parties seek. Assuming that the parties' briefing of any dispositive motion concludes with Plaintiff's reply, the Court finds that it would be without adequate time to give full and fair consideration to the parties' briefing on this issue, given the length of the requested extensions and the Court's current trial schedule. Accordingly, the parties' motion (ECF No. 21) should be and hereby is DENIED. In light of this ruling, the Court will entertain a motion for a continuance of this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
