BECKY R. THORSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants MEND Medical Services and Gwen Blossom's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 89). Defendants assert that there is good cause for an amendment to the scheduling order that would allow for dispositive motions to be filed within ten days because they received key medical records on January 29, 2018, after the January 19, 2018 dispositive motions deadline had passed.
Defendants, however, incorrectly rely on an old scheduling order that is no longer in effect. The Court's original Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on June 15, 2017, and stated that the due date for dispositive motions was January 19, 2018, and the trial ready date was April 23, 2018. (See Doc. No. 22.) But on July 27, 2017, the Court issued an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 40.) That Order issued and was in effect at the time that Defendants were added into the case in the fall of 2017, and is still the operative Scheduling Order in the case today.
If the January 19, 2018 dispositive motion deadline were still in effect, the Court would deny Defendants' motion to amend because there has been no good cause shown as to why Defendants' dispositive motion could not have been brought sooner or as to why Defendants did not seek relief from the schedule once they knew they would not be able to file their dispositive motion by the January 19, 2018 deadline. But the July 27, 2017 Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order adjusted many of the deadlines in this case: the new Scheduling Order set the discovery deadline at January 15, 2018; the nondispositive motions deadline at February 14, 2018; the dispositive motions deadline at March 19, 2018; and the trial ready date at June 25, 2018. (Id.)
It is unclear why Defendants' dispositive motion could not have been timely filed by March 19, 2018, especially since they had the medical documents they said they needed way back on January 29, 2018. But Defendants have missed the dispositive motions deadline by only approximately two weeks (rather than by two and a half months as Defendants incorrectly represent in their brief), and Defendants are requesting only a minor extension to the scheduling order. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants' motion in part. Defendant represents that their "motion for Summary Judgment [is] prepared and ready to file." (Doc. No. 90 at 2.) Accordingly, rather than granting Defendants ten days to file their dispositive motion, the Court orders Defendants to file their dispositive motion on or before
No further amendments to the Amended Scheduling Order will be allowed without a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ("A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.").
Accordingly,
2. Plaintiff must file any response to Defendants MEND Medical Services and Gwen Blossom's dispositive motion on or before
3. Defendants must file any reply to Plaintiff's opposition on or before
4. This case shall be ready for trial as of