Opinion
Civil No. 08-cv-108-SM.
February 2, 2009
ORDER
A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was filed in this case. Plaintiff responded that limited discovery relative to jurisdictional facts was necessary before the issue could be adequately addressed. That discovery was allowed, and a response to the motion was due on February 27, 2009. The parties have since filed an assented-to motion for additional time to complete the limited discovery until March 23, 2009, and the time for filing a response to April 23, 2009. The Magistrate Judge granted that motion, which is fine. But the motion is not ripe and will not be ripe until after April 23, 2009 (assuming no further delays). There is no reason to maintain this aged motion on the docket as if it could be resolved when in reality it cannot, and, as the Administrative Office maintains arcane accounting methods that would be distorted by carrying this motion beyond March 31, 2009, as one that could have been but was not timely resolved, the motion (document no. 32) is hereby denied, without prejudice to renewing it following completion of jurisdictional discovery, if based upon the results of that discovery, it can be refiled in good faith.