Clark Capital Management Group Inc. v. Navigator Planning Group LLC et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING 18 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order filed by Clark Capital Management Group Inc., signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 05/06/2015. The Court declines to amend the scheduling order, but further consideration may be given if and when good cause is shown. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAIL. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CLARK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-C-1437

NAVIGATOR PLANNING GROUP LLC, and
NAVIGATOR BROKERAGE GROUP LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

The parties have filed a joint motion to amend the scheduling order in the above matter by
removing the trial and pre-trial dates and extending all deadlines by 90 days. The parties indicate
that the reason for the motion is to allow settlement discussions. They state that their interests
would be better served by exhausting settlement efforts before committing significant time and
expense of formal discovery and the preparation of expert reports.
The Court shares the parties interests in avoiding unnecessary costs and settling the case
early, if possible. Indeed, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs the Court to
construe and administer the rules “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding.” Unfortunately, extending trials indefinitely seldom accomplishes either.
On January 14, 2015, the Court scheduled this matter for trial more than a year later on March 7,
2016. We are still ten months in advance of the scheduled trial date. The parties have not given
any indication why they cannot both pursue settlement discussions and be ready to try the case in
the event they are unsuccessful by the scheduled date. The Court is certainly willing to approve

proposed changes to the schedule that will postpone expert disclosure dates and even the discovery
deadline to accommodate the trial date. Further consideration to moving the trial can also be
considered if and when good cause is shown. Based upon the record now before the Court,
however, the Court declines to remove the trial date. The motion is, therefore, DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 6th

day of May, 2015.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2