It's not uncommon for parties to find themselves in a position where, while discussing settlement, they end up filing a series of short (or not so short) extensions over a potentially lengthy period in order to give themselves time to negotiate.
Why not just stipulate to a full-on stay? The problem with a complete stay is that it removes all pressure to actually get the settlement done. I've seen cases where one side wanted to push the settlement forward, but would have had to essentially move to lift a stay to apply any kind of pressure. That's not where you want to be.
Sometimes, implementing the process as a series of stipulated extensions of a deadline, such as an answer deadline, can help maintain some pressure for each side to continue to negotiate while not actually requiring the parties to litigate. There is always the implicit threat that, if the parties can't agree on a further extension, the case will start right back up again.
As we've noted before, though, eventually the Court may want an update. The exact number of repeated extensions that a particular judge will tolerate likely depends on the circumstances, but it's not infinite.
We got another data point on this last week after the parties in a patent action before Judge Bryson filed 7 stipulations to stay an answer deadline. The Court granted the newest stip, but asked in the accompanying oral order for a status update within 4 days:
ORDER: This stipulation to extend time (D.I. 249 ) is granted. However, this is the seventh stipulation to extend time for defendants to file their answers and counterclaims with nearly identical language. Accordingly, parties are directed to file a joint status report with the court no later than December 12, 2025, at 5 p.m. Eastern Time setting forth what progress has been made toward settlement of this matter, what remains to be done, and when the parties expect this matter to be resolved. Signed by Judge William C. Bryson on 12/08/2025. (mpb) (Entered: 12/08/2025)
Colt International Clothing, Inc. v. Quasar Science LLC, C.A. No. 22-213-WCB, D.I. 250 (D. Del.).
On the fourth day, the parties filed a notice of settlement and promised to dismiss the case.
