ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff Asphalt Paving Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Re-Open Expert Discovery and Continue the Trial Date and Uncontested Motion to Extend the Deadline to File its Application for Attorney's Fees Incurred in Connection with its Successful Motion to Compel (Doc. 99).

The Case Management and Scheduling Order ("CMSO") which governs this case established the following deadlines:

(Doc. 67). On the parties' joint motion, the Court found good cause to modify the CMSO and extended the discovery deadline to May 6, 2016, and the deadlines for dispositive and Daubert motions to May 20, 2016 (Doc. 82).

The parties subsequently requested an additional 90 day extension of the discovery deadline which the Court granted (Docs. 85-86). In its Order, the Court said that the extension of the discovery deadline to August 4, 2016 did not impact any other case deadline or the trial date.

At the May 18, 2016 mediation of this controversy, Plaintiff became suspicious that Defendants had not produced all documents responsive to its requests for production. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, and Defendants responded on June 2, 2016 by producing 164 pages of additional documents (Doc. 98). The Court granted the motion to compel and awarded Plaintiff attorney's fees and costs (Id.). In its Order, the Court gave Plaintiff 14 days to file its application for fees and costs (Id.).

Now, Plaintiff seeks to re-open discovery for 30 days to permit it to obtain and disclose supplemental and additional expert reports based upon the additional documents produced by Defendants on June 2 (Doc. 99 at 2-3). It argues that "[g]iven the technical nature of this case, it would present a manifest injustice if [Plaintiff] were not permitted to meet this newly produced evidence with appropriate expert testimony." (Id., ¶ 16). Defendants acknowledge that "[i]t could be argued that the documents [they] provided on June 2, 2016 may call for different experts than are currently involved for both Plaintiff and Defendants." (Doc. 102, ¶ 7).

Plaintiff also argues that "[a]s Daubert and dispositive motions have already been filed, such an extension will require the adjournment of the same and a corresponding continuance of the scheduled trial date." (Id., ¶ 15). Defendants do not oppose continuance of the trial, and affirmatively asks that the trial date and all other applicable dates be continued if the motion to reopen discovery is granted (Doc. 102, ¶ 8).

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks a 30 day extension of time to file its application for attorney's fees (Doc. 99, ¶¶ 18-21). As grounds, it expresses its opinion that the parties will likely resolve the issue between themselves. Defendants do not oppose this request (Id., ¶ 21).

After due consideration Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part as follows:

(1) Plaintiff has through August 1, 2016, to disclose any supplemental and additional expert reports it obtains that are based upon the additional documents produced by Defendants on June 2.

(2) Plaintiff has through August 1, 2016, to file its application for attorney's fees for prosecuting the motion to compel (Docs. 90, 98).

(3) The following events and deadlines are CONTINUED and will be rescheduled by the District Judge: September 6, 2016 deadline to meet in person to prepare a joint final pretrial statement, September 16, 2016 deadline to file the joint final pretrial statement, August 3, 2016 deadline to file all other motions and motions in limine, final pretrial conference, September 15, 2016 trial status conference, and October 3, 2016 trial term.

(4) The Court has an idea, but will not assume to know what Plaintiff means when it seeks an "adjournment" of the already filed Daubert and dispositive motions (Doc. 102, ¶ 15). Because it is unclear what relief Plaintiff is seeking, this portion of its motion is DENIED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED.