Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76 RegisterActionDate "2017-11-13" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment 42 on October 4, 2017. Plaintiff's response was due on October 25, 2017. On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension until November 27, 2017 to respond. At that time, the final pre-trial conference in the case was set for 1/10/2018, with trial set for 2/12/2018. Noting that the Court needed adequate time to decide Defendant's motion before trial, it granted Plaintiff an extension of time to respond up to and including November 13, 2017. After the Court granted the motion, Defendant filed an 11-page Motion for Reconsideration requesting the Court to reverse its decision to grant Plaintiff an extension, or, in the alternative, to grant Defendant 14 additional days to file a reply and to reschedule the FPTC and trial dates. The Court did the latter, resetting the FPTC for 2/8/2018 and trial for 3/12/2018. Defendant was also given up to and including December 11, 2017 to file a reply. Plaintiff has now filed his second motion for extension of time; he requests only four additional days, or until November 17, 2017 to respond. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) allows a district court to grant an extension of time if good cause is shown, and it gives a district court broad discretion to deny or grant the motion. Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 593 (7th Cir. 2012). The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause. In his motion, Plaintiff cites various reasons for needing an additional four days to respond: (1) Defendant's motion is extensive (with 123 undisputed material facts), (2) sifting through discovery is time-consuming, and (3) other personal difficulties such as a demanding work schedule and a paralegel having left Plaintiff counsel's law firm. Responding to Defendant's motion is no easy task; Defendant's memorandum in support of summary judgment is 41 pages with an extensive appendix attached containing 22 materials in support (18 of which are full deposition transcripts from various individuals). It is obvious that discovery in this case has been complicated and extensive, considering the parties filed three JOINT motions for extension of time to complete fact discovery 22 , 27 , 39 . Furthermore, granting Plaintiff an extension up to November 17, 2017, still gives the Court adequate time to decide Defendant's motion before the FPTC on 2/2/2018. Defendant has indicated that it agrees to a 1-day extension, but not a 4-day extension. The Court does not believe an extra 3 days makes a meaningful difference from Defendant's standpoint. Therefore Plaintiff has up to and including November 17, 2017 to file his response. Defendant has up to and including December 15, 2017 to file a reply. Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/13/2017. (ACM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de23 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de31 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de57 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de66 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de76 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01015_de74 @default.