Ribeiro et al v. Baby Trend, Inc.

Filing 553

ORDER denying 550 Defendants' Joint Motion for Continuance and Joint Motion for Expedited ruling. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (CCB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
FRANCO RIBEIRO and DEANNA
RIBEIRO, as individuals and as next
friends and biological parents of
Lucas Ribeiro, an infant,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BABY TREND, INC., a corporation,
MARK SEDLACK, MILLENIUM
DEVELOPMENT CORP., INDIANA
MILLS & MANUFACTURING INC.,
LERADO GROUP CO., LTD.,
LERADO GROUP (HOLDING)
COMPANY,
LTD.,
LERADO
(ZHONG SHAN) INDUSTRIAL CO.,
LTD., LERADO CHINA LIMITED,
LERADO
H.K.
LIMITED,
HOLMBERGS SAFETY SYSTEM
HOLDING AB, GNOSJOGRUPPEN
AB, HOLMBERGS CHILDSAFETY
AB, MAXI MILIAAN B.V., and
DOREL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV204
ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Joint Motion for Continuance and Joint
Motion for Expedited Ruling (Filing No. 550). The defendants jointly request an extension
of the dates set forth in the court’s December 7, 2016, Order Amending Final Progression of
the Case (Filing No. 544). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (Filing No. 551).
In the court’s December 7, 2016, Order, the court informed the parties that further
motions to change deadlines “shall not be considered in the absence of a showing by counsel
1

of due diligence in the timely development of this case for trial and the recent development of
circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion, which require that additional
time be allowed.” (Filing No. 544 at p. 5). The court finds there has been no showing of
due diligence or recent exceptional developments necessitating the defendants’ requested
extensions of time. Therefore, the court is not inclined to extend the dispositive motion
deadline, currently set for January 23, 2017, or the trial date, set to commence the week of
April 24, 2017. However, the court has no objection to the parties’ agreeing to extend the
time for defendants to conclude depositions, including expert depositions. The parties are
instructed to meet and confer, per Plaintiffs’ response (Filing No. 551 at p. 7), to mutually
consent and jointly agree to additional time to conclude depositions. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: Defendants’ Joint Motion for Continuance and Joint Motion for
Expedited Ruling (Filing No. 550) is denied.

DATED: January 12, 2017
BY THE COURT:
s/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2