Opinion
C22-0219-KKE
10-06-2023
CARY BRINKLEY, Plaintiff, v. MARK BARNHART, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF CASE SCHEDULE
KYMBERLY K. EVANSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to extend the case schedule. Dkt. No. 33. Defendant does not oppose this motion and agrees that there is good cause to extend the deadlines in light of the need to depose Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 34.
It appears that this motion could have been filed as a stipulation if Plaintiff's counsel had met and conferred with Defendant's counsel. See Dkt. No. 34 at 1. The Court expects counsel to communicate more diligently in the future. Nonetheless, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend the case schedule (Dkt. No. 33) and DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff's motion to file Plaintiff's declaration under seal (Dkt. No. 32), because the parties agree that good cause exists to modify the case schedule without reference to that declaration.
The Court will issue a new case schedule consistent with the parties' request.