Judge Andrews on Friday denied a fairly typical stipulation extending time for the briefing on a motion to dismiss:
ORAL ORDER: There is a pending motion of a routine nature. Each side is represented by multiple attorneys, at least some of whom on both sides are known to me to be more than competent. Summer schedules and other professional obligations are not a reason to add more than two months to the briefing schedule for this motion. The stipulation (D.I. 15 ) is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/3/2022. (nms) (Entered: 06/03/2022)
Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., C.A. No. 22-305-RGA, D.I. 16 (D. Del. June 3, 2022).
I've noticed two similar orders lately as well, denying early-case extensions or stays and citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(2), both from Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge. First, with regard to a stipulation to extend time to submit a scheduling order:
ORAL ORDER re 18 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to submit a scheduling order to 6/1/2022 filed by IP Power Holdings Limited: . . . By the time of the Rule 16 conference scheduled for 6/6/2022, this matter will have been pending for 8 months, and the Scheduling Conference will occur more than "90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2). Therefore, the court will not entertain any further stipulations to continue the Scheduling Conference. Ordered by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 5/3/2022. (Taylor, Daniel) (Entered: 05/03/2022)
Then, Judge Thynge denied a joint motion for a 10-day stay which, according to the docket, was because the parties had reached a settlement:
ORAL ORDER denying 21 Motion to Stay: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(2), "[t]he judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but unless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared." Defendant was served on 12/16/2021, D.I. 6 , and first appeared on 1/6/2022, D.I. 7. Here, after numerous stipulations to extend time and to stay, the parties were to submit their proposed scheduling order on 5/31/2022. D.I. 20 . The parties have failed to meet that deadline and now request an additional stay of proceedings. D.I. 21 . Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the motion is DENIED; and (2) the Scheduling Conference set for 6/6/2022 at 10:00 AM shall be converted to a Status Conference at the same time. Ordered by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 6/1/2022. (Taylor, Daniel) (Entered: 06/01/2022)
Interestingly, the day after denying the joint motion to stay on 6/1, Judge Thynge granted a stipulation to move the answer deadline back by a similar amount.
It's good to keep in mind that, while the Court regularly grants stipulations to modify deadlines, it's not a sure thing.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
