ORDER

C.W. HOFFMAN, JR., Magistrate Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to extend discovery deadlines (ECF No. 69), filed on January 19, 2018. Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 71) on January 29, 2018, and Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 73) on February 5, 2018.

Defendants move for a ninety day extension to the discovery period and the motions deadlines in this case, citing delays related to change of counsel and medical issues. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that Defendants' proposed extension is not made in good faith, and that there is no good cause for a second extension of the discovery period.

Under Local Rule 26-4, a motion or stipulation to extend the deadlines of a discovery plan must be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. Here, the Court finds that in light of Defendants' representations that counsel has been experiencing medical issues, and that new counsel has taken over and needed time to become acquainted with the facts of the case, good cause exists for an extension. Plaintiff does not offer any support for his claims that Defendants' reasons are not made in good faith, other than his desire to avoid delay. Further, Plaintiff does not articulate any reason why a ninety day would be unduly prejudicial. Plaintiff does mention that certain other issues before the Court are still pending judgment, but there is no basis for linking these other pending motions with the good cause analysis for the instant motion to extend discovery.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to extend discovery (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining discovery deadlines shall be as follows: