Opinion
2:20-cv-01096-TL
01-30-2023
3M COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AIME LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO RENOTE AND TO EXTEND TIME
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants move to renote and to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and for contempt. Dkts. 84, 85. The Court DENIES defendants' motion to renote and to extend time to respond to the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 84) and defendants' motion to renote and to extend time to respond to the motion for contempt (Dkt. 85).
Defendants' counsel David Dallas Dickey applied for leave to appear pro hac vice on January 19, 2023, i.e., nearly two months after the discovery deadline, five weeks after motions to withdraw by defendants' counsel R. Gale Porter and Richard D. Ross were stricken as deficient, a week after the motion for summary judgment was filed, and the same day the motion for contempt was filed. See Dkts. 41, 75, 77, 81. Blatant disregard for court-ordered deadlines, a failure to file motions that conform with the Local Rules, and an attempt to permit the withdrawal of counsel without filing a cognizable motion to do so, do not constitute good cause to renote or to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and for contempt.