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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?