Filed: Oct. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 12, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER LEONARD P. STARK , District Judge . At Wilmington this 12th day of October, 2017, having considered the parties' filings related to Defendant David W. Elkin's ("Defendant" or "Elkin") Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement Discussions and for Expedited Consideration (D .I. 306), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion (D.I. 306) is GRANTED. 1. Pursuant to Rule 16(b), "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R.
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER LEONARD P. STARK , District Judge . At Wilmington this 12th day of October, 2017, having considered the parties' filings related to Defendant David W. Elkin's ("Defendant" or "Elkin") Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement Discussions and for Expedited Consideration (D .I. 306), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion (D.I. 306) is GRANTED. 1. Pursuant to Rule 16(b), "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. ..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.
At Wilmington this 12th day of October, 2017, having considered the parties' filings related to Defendant David W. Elkin's ("Defendant" or "Elkin") Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement Discussions and for Expedited Consideration (D .I. 306), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion (D.I. 306) is GRANTED.
1. Pursuant to Rule 16(b), "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Good cause" exists when the imposed schedule "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." ICU Med., Inc. v. Rymed Techs., Inc., 674 F.Supp.2d 574, 577 (D. Del. Dec. 16, 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) Advisory Committee Notes!(1983 Amendments)).
2. The Court entered a briefing schedul in this case on August 28, 2017. (See D.I. 305) On September 18, 2017, Elkin's counsel initiated settlement discussions with Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Norman ("Plaintiff') and three law firmslthat have represented Plaintiff during the course of this decade-long litigation. (See D.I. 306 Ex.A) While Defendant's settlement proposal stated the settlement offer would expire od September 22, 2017 (see D.I. 306 Ex. A at 4), recent briefing indicates that consideration of thj offer is ongoing (see D.I. 306 309 at if 1).
3. Under these circumstances, there is good cause to grant the proposed amendment to the scheduling order. Particularly given the long historyof this case, it is appropriate to delay the briefing schedule a short time to allow the settlementefforts an opportunity to proceed. To allow for a reasonable opportunity to see if this case can be resolved, without further litigation and expense, a slight pause in the proceedings is required. Therefore, despite reasonable diligence, Defendant cannot complete his brief on tJe current schedule.
4. Nor does the Court believe the short rxtension of briefing will prejudice Plaintiff.1
5. Briefing on the issues set forth in the parties' joint letter dated August 1, 2017 (D .I. 301) and as discussed and ordered during the lugust 16, 2017 teleconference (D .I. 304) shall proceed as follows:
