Norman v. Elkin et al

Filing 310

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 306 MOTION to Amend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement Discussions and for Expedited Consideration filed by David W. Elkin. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 10/12/17. (ntl)

I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JEFFREY M. NORMAN,
1

•

I'
Io

Plaintiff,

I•

v.
1

•

I:

DAVID W. ELKIN, RICHARD M. SHORIN,
and THE ELKIN GROUP, INC.,

1.

I•

C. A. No. 06-005-LPS

Defendants,
- andI,

US MOBILCOMM, INC.,

I·
i
, ,
I

I

Nominal Defendant.

I'

I.
I

I

MEMORANDUM ORDER
I

At Wilmington this 12th day of October, 2017, having considered the parties' filings
I
I

related to Defendant David W. Elkin's ("Defendant''' or "Elkin") Motion to Amend Briefing
Schedule Due to Settlement Discussions and for Expedited Consideration (D .I. 3 06), IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion (D.I. 306) is GRANTED.
1.

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and

with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).' "Good cause" exists when the imposed
schedule "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension."

ICU Med., Inc. v. Rymed Techs., Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 574, 577 (D. Del. Dec. 16, 2009) (citing
I

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) Advisory Committee Notes!(1983 Amendments)).
I

2.

The Court entered a briefing

schedul~ in this case on August 28, 2017.
I

1

(See D.I.

305) On September 18, 2017, Elkin' s counsel initiated settlement discussions with Plaintiff
I

Jeffrey M. Norman ("Plaintiff') and three law firmslthat have represented Plaintiff during the
I

course of this decade-long litigation. (See D.I. 306 Ex. A) While Defendant's settlement
I

proposal stated the settlement offer would expire od September 22, 2017 (see D.I. 306 Ex. A at
4), recent briefing indicates that consideration of thj offer is ongoing (see D.I. 306
I

309 at if 1).

3.

at~ 2; D.I.

Under these circumstances, there is good cause to grant the proposed amendment
i

to the scheduling order. Particularly given the long history of this case, it is appropriate to delay
I

the briefing schedule a short time to allow the settlement efforts an opportunity to proceed. To
I
I

allow for a reasonable opportunity to see if this case, can be resolved, without further litigation
I

I

and expense, a slight pause in the proceedings is required. Therefore, despite reasonable
diligence, Defendant cannot complete his brief on tJe current schedule.
I

I

4.

Nor does the Court believe the short rxtension of briefing will prejudice Plaintiff.'

5.

Briefing on the issues set forth in the1parties' joint letter dated August 1, 2017

(D .I. 301) and as discussed and ordered during the lugust 16, 2017 teleconference (D .I. 304)
shall proceed as follows:

I
I

Simultaneous opening briefs shall be filed ori:

November 21, 2017

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

1

Nor is the Court persuaded it should grant the relief sought by Plaintiff in his brief. (See
D.I. 308 at~ 9)
I
2

Simultaneous answering briefs shall be filed on:

December 22, 2017

Simultaneous reply briefs shall be filed on:

January 22, 2018

RA\ LE LEONARD P.
ARK
HO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3