Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-02725_de52> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02725_de52 RegisterActionDate "2018-10-18" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02725_de52 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER denying 48 Motion for Extension of Time to File without prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows modification of a scheduling order "only for good cause and with the judge's consent." "Demonstrating good cause under the rule 'requires the moving party to show that it has been diligent in attempting to meet the deadlines, which means it must provide an adequate explanation for any delay.'" Strope v. Collins, 315 F. Appx 57, 61 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1205 n.4 (10th Cir. 2006)); see Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., 300 F.R.D. 678, 681 (D. Colo. 2014). Here, Plaintiff's explanation for his proposed 30-day extension of the discovery deadline is that he "has found additional defendants to be added to an amended complaint to be filed after further investigation" and that he is awaiting subpoena responses. 48 Plaintiff offers no explanation as to his diligence in attempting to meet the discovery deadline, and provides no detail as to the delay in identifying additional defendants, or why the new information he describes could not be discovered earlier. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion 48 is DENIED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 10/18/2018. Text Only Entry (stvlc2, ) (Entered: 10/18/2018)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02725_de52 AdministrativeID "53" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02725_de52 OntologyLabel dismiss_without_prejudice @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02725_de52 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02725_de52 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-02725_de47 @default.