Legal practice in the District of Delaware tends to involve filing a lot of stipulations, particularly stipulations to adjust deadlines. Most often (but not always), these are "so ordered" shortly after they are filed.
Every once in a while, though, the Court will "so order" a stipulation but also modify the PDF to add a note or change something.
For practitioners, honestly, these modifications can be very hard to catch. If the Court types something into the "so ordered" PDF, it can be almost invisible unless you have a lawyer or paralegal do a careful line-by-line comparison of the original and the new PDF.
If the Court doesn't note it on the docket, there is a fairly high chance that the parties will just miss it. This happens every once in a while.
The Court sometimes notes on the docket when a "so ordered" stip is modified. For example:
SO ORDERED with Modification, re 34 Stipulation to Extend Time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Answering Brief due 12/17/2025., Reply Brief due 1/14/2026). Signed by Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson on 10/10/2025. (mdb) (Entered: 10/10/2025)
Autel Intelligent Technology Corp., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Foxwell Technology Co. Ltd., C.A. No. 25-867-JLH-EGT, D.I. 35 (D. Del. Oct. 10, 2025).
(This is incredibly helpful. The last thing any of us want to do is miss an order from the Court. )
Be Sure to Check Those "So Ordered" Stipulations
But the reality is that the Court may not always include a note that a stipulation is modified, so we practitioners need to check any "so ordered" stipulations to make sure that the text was not modified.
Today we have another example. In Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, C.A. No. 24-740-SB (D. Del.), the parties filed a stipulation extending various deadlines. The Court then "so ordered" the stipulation:
If you look closely, though, the "55" in the "so ordered" line is a link to a PDF. That PDF is modified from what was submitted.
Here is the signature line of the original stip:
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, C.A. No. 24-740-SB, D.I. 54 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2025)
And here is the stip as it was signed, including a warning to the parties about further stipulations:
Id., D.I. 55.
See the difference? There is a new line in the same Times New Roman font warning the parties about further stipulations.
This warning looks like it would be easy to miss, but the parties in the caught it. Good on them!
The defendants, however, still tried to file an unopposed motion to extend certain expert report deadlines. They noted in the motion that the Court had previously said it would "not look kindly" on further extensions, and offered to "discuss" the requested extensions with the Court.
The Court quickly denied the motion based on its prior warning:
ORAL ORDER: Defendants' motion (D.I. 61 ) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court previously warned that it would not look kindly on further requests. D.I 55 . Yet Defendants' motion provides no basis for extending the deadlines. If Defendants believe an extension is still necessary, they may re-file the motion, in which they must include good reason(s) for their request. Ordered by Judge Stephanos Bibas on 12/2/2025. (mpb) (Entered: 12/02/2025)
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, C.A. No. 24-740-SB, D.I. 62 (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2025).
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
