Filed: Feb. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2012
Summary: DAVID ALAN EZRA, District Judge Defendants' Motion to modify the August 30, 2011 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The deadlines delineated in the August 30, 2011 Scheduling Order regarding pretrial statements, motions in limine, the final pretrial conference, and the trial date, are vacated, and will be continued. The Court will issue an amended scheduling order accordingly. The Court, however, denies Defendants' Motion to the extent that it seeks to modify
Summary: DAVID ALAN EZRA, District Judge Defendants' Motion to modify the August 30, 2011 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The deadlines delineated in the August 30, 2011 Scheduling Order regarding pretrial statements, motions in limine, the final pretrial conference, and the trial date, are vacated, and will be continued. The Court will issue an amended scheduling order accordingly. The Court, however, denies Defendants' Motion to the extent that it seeks to modify ..
More
DAVID ALAN EZRA, District Judge
Defendants' Motion to modify the August 30, 2011 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The deadlines delineated in the August 30, 2011 Scheduling Order regarding pretrial statements, motions in limine, the final pretrial conference, and the trial date, are vacated, and will be continued. The Court will issue an amended scheduling order accordingly.
The Court, however, denies Defendants' Motion to the extent that it seeks to modify deadlines regarding witness disclosures. Should Plaintiff file an opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment that raises new issues warranting further discovery, Defendants may seek further modification of the Scheduling Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
