Opinion
Cause No. 1:05-CV-00053.
February 27, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Filing (Second) Amended Complaint (Docket # 68) filed by pro se Plaintiff Teresa Echemendia, seeking a thirty day extension to the February 27, 2006, deadline for amendments to the pleadings by Echemendia. For the reasons set forth herein, Echemendia's motion will be DENIED.
"Continuances or extensions of time with respect to the deadlines for amendments, discovery, and dispositive motions will be granted only upon a convincing showing of good cause, upon a request made before the pertinent deadline has expired." Smith v. Howe Military Sch., No. 3:96-CV-790RM, 1997 WL 662506, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 1997); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); U.S. v. 1948 S. Martin Luther King Drive, 270 F.3d 1102, 1110 (7th Cir. 2001); Tschantz v. McCann, 160 F.R.D. 568, 571 (N.D. Ind. 1995). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Smith, 1997 WL 662406 at *1; Tschantz, 160 F.R.D. at 571. In other words, to demonstrate good cause, a party must show that despite its diligence, the time table could not reasonably have been met. Smith, 1997 WL 662406 at *1; Tschantz, 160 F.R.D. at 571.
Here, Echemendia fails to articulate any reason for the requested extension; thus, she clearly has fallen short of establishing a showing of good cause that would warrant an extension to the deadline for amendments to the pleadings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); see generally 1948 South, 270 F.3d at 1110 ("Courts have a legitimate interest in ensuring that parties abide by scheduling orders to ensure prompt and orderly litigation.").
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Filing (Second) Amended Complaint (Docket # 68) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.