Clark v. FDS Bank, 6:17-cv-692-Orl-41TBS. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20180706817
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 85). The parties seek an extension of all current case management deadlines to unspecified new dates, dependent upon when the Court resolves Plaintiff's pending motion to compel discovery and Defendants' pending motion for a protective order ( Id., 3). The parties' motion relies on FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) and cases that recognize the Court's broad discretion
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 85). The parties seek an extension of all current case management deadlines to unspecified new dates, dependent upon when the Court resolves Plaintiff's pending motion to compel discovery and Defendants' pending motion for a protective order ( Id., 3). The parties' motion relies on FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) and cases that recognize the Court's broad discretion t..
More
ORDER
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 85). The parties seek an extension of all current case management deadlines to unspecified new dates, dependent upon when the Court resolves Plaintiff's pending motion to compel discovery and Defendants' pending motion for a protective order (Id., ¶ 3).
The parties' motion relies on FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) and cases that recognize the Court's broad discretion to manage its docket (Id., ¶ 7). The relief sought requires modification of the Case Management and Scheduling Order ("CMSO"). Counsel practicing in this Court are expected to know that FED. R. CIV. P. 16 controls modification of the CMSO. If they didn't already know, the Court informed these lawyers of this fact in an earlier Order (Doc. 66), so it is disappointing to see this motion brought pursuant to Rule 6.
In its prior Order the Court informed counsel that future motions to modify the CMSO that did not comply with Rule 16 would be denied (Id.). Accordingly, the pending motion is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
