Filed: Nov. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT-RELATED DEADLINES BY FORTY-FIVE DAYS CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their counsel of record, agree to and request a modification of the March 26, 2018 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) to extend the expert-related deadlines by forty-five days. Good cause exists to grant this stipulated request because the parties requi
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT-RELATED DEADLINES BY FORTY-FIVE DAYS CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their counsel of record, agree to and request a modification of the March 26, 2018 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) to extend the expert-related deadlines by forty-five days. Good cause exists to grant this stipulated request because the parties requir..
More
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT-RELATED DEADLINES BY FORTY-FIVE DAYS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their counsel of record, agree to and request a modification of the March 26, 2018 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) to extend the expert-related deadlines by forty-five days. Good cause exists to grant this stipulated request because the parties require more time to disclose expert witnesses.
A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee's notes of 1983 amendment). "The district court may modify the pretrial schedule `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment).
On March 26, 2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Order requiring, as relevant here, the parties to exchange expert disclosures by November 19, 2018, and supplemental/rebuttal reports by December 17, 2018. (ECF No. 53.) The Court further required that expert discovery be completed by no later than January 16, 2019. (Id.) The parties request an extension of the expert-discovery deadlines because they require additional time to make expert disclosures and explore the possibility of early settlement which may obviate the need for such disclosures and further litigation costs. Fact discovery is complete. And the parties' proposed modification and request will not affect any other scheduling deadlines, including the dispositive-motion dates.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
[Proposed] ORDER
Good cause appearing, the parties' stipulated request to modify the expert-related deadlines is GRANTED. The March 26, 2018 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) is modified as follows:
The deadline for disclosing experts is January 3, 2019, with any rebuttal experts witness disclosures due by January 31, 2019.
Expert discovery shall close on March 1, 2019. Any discovery motions related to expert discovery must be noticed for the hearing to take place by this date and shall be brought in the same manner as motions related to non-expert discovery.
In all other respects, the March 26, 2018 Scheduling Order remains in full force and effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
