Opinion
01 Civ. 9860 (LAK)
July 8, 2002
ORDER
The plaintiff in this action seeks an extension of the discovery deadline of June 30, 2002 and of the deadline for submission of the joint pretrial order (July 30, 2002) on the grounds that defendants have not yet produced witnesses for deposition despite the fact that the depositions were noticed for February 7 and 8, 2002 and that plaintiff has not yet been deposed because defendant Nippon Express first sought plaintiff's deposition, by a witness located in Japan, only a short time prior to the expiration of the discovery period.
This Court expects all counsel to comply with scheduling orders. In consequence, if a party, such as plaintiff in this case, finds that the discovery period is elapsing without its obtaining needed discovery as a result of its adversary's failure to produce witnesses or otherwise comply with its discovery obligations, it is incumbent upon it to seek the Court's intervention at an early date so that the schedule may be complied with. This plaintiff failed to do.
Although the Court would be entirely justified in these circumstances in rejecting the request, none of the parties has objected to a brief extension. And while lack of objection ordinarily would not warrant such relief, it exercises its discretion in this instance to extend the outstanding deadlines by thirty days to permit completion of discovery. There will be no further extensions absent good cause, a finding the Court is not likely to make absent some exceptional situation. Counsel shall cooperate to meet the deadlines.
Plaintiff's complaint regarding defendants' pending motion should be made in its opposing papers.