1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The court has before it a request for an extension of time to file dispositive motions 17 (doc. 89). Our Rule 16 scheduling order indicated that the dispositive motion cutoff date 18 would not be extended due to case processing problems, discovery disputes, or settlement 19 negotiations. We also advised the parties that the Rule 16 scheduling order would be strictly 20 enforced. Yet the request for an extension fails to offer any reason for the extension. 21 Accordingly, although the request was modest, we necessarily deny it for the reason that no 22 good cause has been shown (doc. 89). 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 91 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA I N S U R A N C E) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) C O R R E C T I O N A L M E D I C A L) ) SERVICES, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) NORTHLAND COMPANY, No. CV-04-347-PHX-FJM ORDER
DATED this 25th day of October, 2005.