Bartleman et al v. Sheraton Operating Corporation et al

Filing 120

ORDER denying 119 Parties' Stipulation to Continue Remaining Deadlines. (See attached Order for details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/8/2013. (TLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Richard Bartleman, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-11-02148-PHX-JAT

Sheraton Operating Corporation, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

The parties have moved the Court for an order “continuing the Discovery and

16

Dispositive Motion Deadlines as established in the Court’s Order dated December 10,

17

2012 [Dkt. 77] by 60 days.” (Doc. 119). The December 10 Order set October 1, 2013 as

18

the discovery cut-off and November 1, 2013 as the dispositive motion deadline.

19

Therefore, the motion filed on October 7, 2013 is in reality one to reopen discovery and

20

extend the dispositive motion deadline.

21

In filing this motion the parties acknowledge ignoring the Court’s Order of

22

December 10, 2012 which set the deadlines and which, in bold print, stated: “Due to the

23

age of this case, there will be NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS of these deadlines.” (Doc.

24

77). The parties were aware a full nine months before filing the instant motion that they

25

were facing a non-extendable deadline.

26

Furthermore, the parties have ignored the express admonition in the Court’s

27

Standard Track Order filed November 1, 2011 stating “it is the practice of this Court to

28

not extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline beyond the two-year anniversary of the

1

case being filed in or removed to Federal Court, nor to allow the Discovery Cut-Off

2

to extend beyond 30 days before the Dispositive Motion Deadline.” (Doc. 6). This

3

admonition is repeated at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference.

4

Finally, the parties have failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). While

5

mediation is commendable, it is not a reason in this Court to extend the deadlines and

6

especially given these deadlines and the age of this case.

7
8
9

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED denying the Parties’ Stipulation to
Continue Remaining Deadlines (Doc. 119).
DATED this 8th day of October, 2013.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-