ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Daubert Motion out of Time and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 83), filed February 26, 2016. Upon consideration, the Court finds that the motion is due to be denied.

As set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order ("CMSO"), the deadline for filing Daubert motions was January 15, 2016 ("Daubert Motion Deadline"). (Doc. 26, p. 2.) In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs seek leave to file a Daubert motion forty-two days after the Daubert Motion Deadline. (Doc. 83 ("Motion to File").) Plaintiffs have also submitted the Daubert motion they request permission to file. (Doc. 84 ("Daubert Motion").) In the Daubert Motion, Plaintiffs move to exclude the testimony of defense expert William Austin. (Id.)

Plaintiffs contend that they have established good cause for failing to adhere to the Daubert Motion Deadline. Specifically, they represent that they were unable to file their Daubert Motion by the relevant deadline because Mr. Austin was not deposed until January 14, 2015—one day before the Daubert Motion Deadline.

As originally issued, the CMSO set the discovery deadline for December 15, 2016. (Id.) However, upon motion by Plaintiffs, the Court extended several discovery deadlines—including the deadline for deposing expert witnesses. (Docs. 51, 52.) In doing so, the Court explicitly warned the parties that it was "not extending any other deadlines" and "this continuance was not to be used as a basis for any further continuances." (Id.) Moreover, the CMSO states that "[f]ailure to complete discovery within the time established by the [CMSO] shall not constitute cause for continuance." (Doc. 26, p. 5.) In light of the foregoing warnings, Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for their Motion to File, and it is due to be denied.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.