Super. Feb. 7, 2012) (denying party's request to amend the scheduling order under the good cause standard where party sought an additional thirty (30) day extension to identify experts and obtain reports more than five months after it had missed the applicable deadline); Todd v. Delmarva Power & Light Co. , 2009 WL 143169, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 14, 2009) (finding both plaintiffs and defendants failed to show good cause to jointly amend a scheduling order to extend the discovery deadline and grant a trial continuance "the day before the discovery cut-off" when the parties had an extensive history of repeatedly ignoring deadlines and taking unreasonably long amounts of time to respond to filings and discovery requests, file motions, serve discovery requests, or take depositions); Candlewood Timber Grp. LLC v. Pan Am. Energy LLC , 2006 WL 258305, at *2, 5 (Del. Super. Jan. 18, 2006) (finding plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for the court to permit the admission of an expert report after the deadline had passed more than three months prior).
This Court's scheduling orders are not guidelines. The parties shall review the Court's November 9, 2009 Scheduling Order and strictly adhere to it.See Todd v. Delmarva Power and Light Co., C.A. No. 06C-10-304, Parkins, J. (Del. Super. January 14, 2009) (Mem. Op.) (holding that scheduling orders are not mere guidelines but have full force and effect as any other order of the Superior Court.) Although the Supreme Court has noted that "scheduling orders are routinely ignored," (s ee Drejka v. Hitchens Tree Service, Inc., No. 748,2009 (Del., December 28, 2010) Slip. Op. at 7. ("Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for litigants to disregard scheduling orders."
The Court must consider the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the evidence shows that there are no material facts in dispute, then the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate that such facts do exist and that trial is required to resolve them.Roberts v. Delmarva Power Light Co., 2009 WL 222985, at *3 (Del.Super. Jan. 13, 2009) (citing Del. Super. Civ. R. 56(c)).Id. (quoting Cerberus Int'l, Ltd. v. Apollo Mgmt., L.P., 794 A.2d 1141, 1149 (Del. 2002) (citation omitted)).