Filed: Feb. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 20) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On February 28, 2018, the parties stipulated for an extension of time for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 20) Defendant asserts that the request "is made in accordance with the Scheduling Order. . ., which permits a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of the parties." ( Id. at 1) Notably, as the parties acknowledge, the Schedu
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 20) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On February 28, 2018, the parties stipulated for an extension of time for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 20) Defendant asserts that the request "is made in accordance with the Scheduling Order. . ., which permits a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of the parties." ( Id. at 1) Notably, as the parties acknowledge, the Schedul..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(Doc. 20)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On February 28, 2018, the parties stipulated for an extension of time for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 20) Defendant asserts that the request "is made in accordance with the Scheduling Order. . ., which permits a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of the parties." (Id. at 1)
Notably, as the parties acknowledge, the Scheduling Order permits "a single thirty (30) day extension. . . by stipulation of the parties." (Doc. 6 at 4, emphasis added) Any additional request for modification of the schedule "must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause." (Id.) Previously, the parties stipulated for an extension of thirty-days for Plaintiff to file her opening brief. (Docs. 13, 14) As a result, any additional requests were be filed by written motion, with the support of good cause. (See Doc. 6 at 4) Accordingly, the Court construes the stipulation for an extension of time to be a motion by Defendant to amend the Scheduling Order.
In making the request to amend the schedule, Defendant fails to identify any reason to support the requested extension. (See Doc. 20) Consequently, the Court is unable to find that good cause exists to support the request. However, the request was filed only three days before the brief was due, and Plaintiff does not oppose modification of the briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. The request for an extension of time is GRANTED IN PART;
2. Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief no later than March 15, 2018; and
3. The parties are reminded that any additional requests for extensions of time SHALL be supported by good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
