ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND OTHER DATES

Re: Dkt. No. 40

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.

Before the Court is the parties' stipulation, filed October 12, 2018, "to Modify the Scheduling Order to Continue Trial and Related Dates," by which the parties jointly request all existing deadlines and dates, including the trial date, be continued for a period of ninety days. Having read and considered the parties' submission, the Court hereby rules as follows.

The parties identify three reasons why the requested continuance is warranted. As set forth below, however, the parties have made an insufficient showing of good cause to modify the Pretrial Preparation Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (providing pretrial preparation order "may be modified only for good cause").

First, defendant's selection of new lead counsel does not constitute good cause for a modification, particularly given that the selected attorney is in the same firm that has been representing defendant from the date of its initial appearance.

Second, although the parties assert there are depositions of "defense witnesses" that "only recently" have been scheduled, and are "likely" to "generate further discovery" (see Stip. at 2:18-20), the parties fail to describe in any manner the nature of the expected further discovery or why it would require three months to complete.

Lastly, according to the parties, plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted, since August 2018, to serve a deposition subpoena on an individual whom plaintiff "believes" was "involved in [his] termination." (See id. at 2:21-24.) The parties have not, however, indicated there is any likelihood of plaintiff's effectuating such service within any particular period of time. Moreover, plaintiff may be able to obtain further information about said individual's possible involvement in the termination from the recently scheduled depositions of other defense witnesses.

Accordingly, the stipulated request for a continuance is hereby DENIED.

If, after conducting the above-referenced scheduled discovery, the parties are in a better position to assess the need for a continuance, they should specify in any future motion for such relief the nature of any proposed additional discovery they intend to seek and explain why it could not reasonably have been obtained within the existing schedule. Further, to the extent the parties rely on the inability of plaintiff to serve the above-referenced potential witness, the parties should explain what additional steps plaintiff intends to take in an effort to effectuate service.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.