ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE PARTIES' STIPULATED REQUEST

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 28)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

ORDER

The Court entered a scheduling order on February 6, 2019, (Doc. 14), setting the non-expert discovery deadline for October 1, 2019, the dispositive motions filing deadline for November 15, 2019, and a trial date of April 28, 2020. (Doc. 14.) On September 30, 2019, the parties requested extensions of certain deadlines, and on October 1, 2019, the Court granted in part the parties' request and extended the non-expert discovery deadline to October 18, 2019, and the expert discovery deadline to November 8, 2019. (Docs. 21, 22.)

On October 22, 2019, the parties filed a "Joint Stipulation to Continue the Non-Expert Discovery Deadlines," requesting that the Court extend the non-expert discovery deadline to December 2, 2019, the expert disclosures deadline to December 2, 2019, the rebuttal expert disclosures deadline to December 9, 2019, the expert discovery deadline to December 20, 2019, and the dispositive motion filing deadline to December 9, 2019. (Doc. 28 at 7.)

In the parties' stipulation, they include a detailed explanation regarding why they were unable to meet the previous deadlines and how both parties would be prejudiced if the deadlines are not extended. (See id. at 2-6.) Specifically, the parties represent that despite attempting to schedule certain crucial depositions for months, due to the unavailability of counsel and the location of witnesses in different states, they have been unable to set two key depositions until November 2019. (Id. at 3-5.) In addition to the two remaining depositions, Defendant still needs to conclude Plaintiff's deposition due to extenuating circumstances and the difficulty in Plaintiff taking off work to appear for her deposition. (Id. at 2-4.) The parties also have conducted extensive ESI discovery involving over 250,000 documents and emails, which the parties recently narrowed to 6,000 emails, and the parties need additional time to sift through the voluminous material. (See id. at 5.) The parties represent they need more time to complete this discovery and the depositions, and cannot designate experts until the aforementioned discovery is completed. (See id. at 5.)

The Court finds good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order to accommodate the parties' request, but will extend all dates in the scheduling order, including the pretrial conference and trial dates, to give the Court sufficient time to rule on dispositive motions.

Finally, the Court notes that the parties filed the stipulation untimely as to the request to extend the non-expert discovery deadline—which passed on October 18, 2019. The request is timely as to all other deadlines, however. The Court finds excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) and will allow the untimely request, as the parties appear to have worked diligently to complete a discovery plan to ensure they will complete all non-expert discovery by December 2, 2019, and no further extensions will be necessary. (See Doc. 28 at 6.) The parties are ADMONISHED that all future requests shall be made in advance of the filing deadline, and any future untimely requests may be denied on that basis.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court MODIFIES the scheduling order dates1 as follows:

All other dates and aspects of the scheduling order, (Doc. 14), shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.