Opinion
2:19-cv-00749-APG-EJY
01-24-2022
REGINALD C. HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN GRIERSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Renewed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 52) in which the Assistant Attorney General (“Counsel”) presents argument regarding his obligation to meet and confer with Plaintiff before filing a motion seeking to extend discovery deadlines. Counsel says he “was not aware of any dispute” regarding Defendants' request, which makes sense given Counsel had not asked Plaintiff if he had any objection. Further, Counsel spent time researching his meet and confer obligations without finding Local Rule 16-1(d), which states: “In all cases, the court may order the parties to meet and confer to discuss a discovery plan, scheduling order, briefing schedule, or any other matters the court deems appropriate.”
With respect to Defendants' extension request, the Court agrees there is good cause and grants the extension. However, Defendants do not identify the existing or proposed dates sought for various applicable deadlines.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Renewed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall, no later than January 31, 2022, submit a scheduling order that includes proposed deadlines for the disclosure of experts and rebuttal experts, the close of written discovery, the close of deposition discovery, the deadline for filing discovery motions, the deadline for filing dispositive motions, and the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order.