Opinion
No. C 10-3856 PJH
01-24-2012
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
The court is in receipt of plaintiff's motion for administrative relief for extension of the fact discovery period for the purpose of completing certain limited discovery, as well as defendants' oppositions thereto. Plaintiff filed her request on January 12, 2012 - one day prior to the fact discovery cutoff. Plaintiff seeks a forty-five day extension from the date on which a ruling is secured in connection with an underlying motion for leave to obtain and complete additional deposition testimony, so that in the event plaintiff's underlying motion is granted, plaintiff might complete the requested additional discovery. The hearing on plaintiff's underlying motion has been scheduled for March 20, 2012.
Plaintiff's motion for administrative relief is DENIED. If granted, plaintiff's request would likely require the court to extend subsequent deadlines set forth in the pretrial order, particularly in view of the fact that the hearing on plaintiff's underlying motion is scheduled one day prior to the March 21 deadline for hearing dispositive motions, and several weeks after the February 15 deadline for submitting dispositive motions. As the court made clear in its prior order denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, the court requires 120 between the hearing for dispositive motions and the trial date, and is unlikely to adjust one date without adjusting the other.
Furthermore, and as highlighted in defendants' oppositions to the instant request, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that good cause exists for modifying the pretrial schedule in the manner plaintiff requests, given plaintiff's lack of diligence in seeking the underlying discovery, and the prejudice likely to inure to defendants in the event plaintiff's request is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge