Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Potter et al

Filing 14

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Continue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 3/8/13. (GRE, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD POTTER, Individually and d/b/a
RALLO’S BAR AND GRILL, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No: 1:12-cv-222
Lee

ORDER
Before the Court is an unopposed motion to continue deadlines [Doc. 13] by which Plaintiff
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. seeks to extend the discovery deadline and dispositive motion deadline
by 30 days to continue discovery and potentially resolve this case. Plaintiff represents that
Defendants do not oppose the request for extensions of time.
The current deadline for concluding all discovery expired on February 21, 2013. The motion
presents no reason for the late request to extend an expired deadline or any explanation for the
parties’ failure to timely complete discovery. Under the circumstances, the discovery deadline, in
the Court’s view, has already passed (and passed well before the motion was filed) and the request
to extend the expired deadline is DENIED. The parties are free to conduct discovery by agreement
if they so desire; however, because the discovery deadline has passed, the Court will not entertain
any resulting discovery disputes if they arise.
The request to extend the dispositive motion deadline to April 5, 20131 is GRANTED. The
Court notes the motion to continue represents the requested extension of the dispositive motions

1

Friday.

The request was made for April 7, 2013, which is a Sunday. April 5 is the preceding

deadline should not affect the current trial date. The requested deadline extension means the
briefing on any dispositive motion would not conclude until May 9, 2013 even though the final pretrial conference is set for May 10, 2013. Under these circumstances, the parties are ON NOTICE
that the Court will not entertain any motions for an extension of time to respond or reply to any
dispositive motion or any motion to delay the final pre-trial conference or trial based on the timing
of any briefing or the Court’s ruling on any dispositive motion filed by the parties. Of course,
nothing prevents any party from filing a dispositive motion prior to the extended deadline.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to continue deadlines [Doc. 13] is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Any dispositive motions shall be filed on or before April 5,
2013. All other deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order [Doc. 11] remain the same.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2