Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
66. Is the court likely to grant the motion?
After the motions deadline expired, and a month before jury selection and trial, the plaintiff's attorney moved for a six-month extension of the discovery, motions, and jury-trial deadlines. The attorney explained that she had been so busy that she had been unable to depose key witnesses or discuss settlement options with her client. The defendant objected to the extension on the ground that there had been ample time to prepare and that the delay would result in increased costs.
After conferring with the parties' attorneys in a federal civil action, the court entered a scheduling order with deadlines for completing discovery and filing dispositive motions. The order set a jury-selection and trial date for two months after the motions deadline.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The court can amend any of the dates or deadlines in the scheduling order, including changing the trial date or the date for jury selection, if the moving party shows good cause.
C is incorrect. The moving party must show the required diligence needed to establish good cause. Therefore, whether additional time could facilitate a settlement is immaterial.
D is incorrect. Although a party opposing a requested extension would need to show that prejudice would likely result from the extension, the motion should be denied because the moving party must first meet its burden to show good cause. Here, the busy schedule of the plaintiff's attorney did not establish the good cause needed to amend the scheduling order.