I posted this morning on Judge Davis' opinion on court costs in the Eolas case. In that opinion, Judge Davis notes that he is posting an updated version of his standing order on bills of costs. The order provides a precis of the law applicable to such motions to assist parties in complying with the meet and confer obligation regarding such motions. (Comes in very handy, since we happen to be working on one of those right now as it happens)
Judge Davis' standing orders page has other new orders on extensions and mock juries that would probably be helpful for to see for those who appear here regularly.
The extensions order in particular is interesting. It notes that "[t]he Court has seen an increasing number of unopposed motions for extensions of time to file answers in cases. These extensions often cause cases to languish on the Court’s docket for months and months before ever proceeding to scheduling conference.1 Indeed, the Court is routinely seeing cases sit on its docket for up to nine months after filing before all parties have answered or otherwise appeared in a case. The Court seeks to efficiently resolve cases and get cases to trial as soon as possible. To further this goal, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants in every case shall first use the procedure set in place by Local Rule CV-12 regarding filing an Application for Extension of Time to Answer with the Clerk’s office rather than filing a Motion for Extension to Time. (Ed note - this procedure provides up to 45 days overall in extensions). The Court further ORDERS that no additional extensions of time will be granted after a party exhausts the forty-five day deadline absent a showing of good cause." (Quotation to CV-12 and footnotes omitted).
Well, it's always interesting to see what they're up to over in the big city of course, but what makes it particularly interesting is that the policy enunciated in it is remarkably similar to one set forth by Magistrate Judge Roy Payne in Marshall last week. In Phoenix Licensing v. GEICO, et al., 2:12cv214-JRG-RSP, on July 19 Judge Payne denied a motion seeking an additional extension after the court had notified the parties that no further extensions would be granted. (It appears the parties had used the 45 days and gotten one more extension with a "now this is the last time" admonition and came back to the well once more). Citing the same CV-12, Judge Payne denied the motion, holding that "settlement discussions are not sufficient cause to delay the filing of responsive pleadings. Extensions of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint make it difficult for the Court to schedule cases, particularly when there are several related cases that may require coordinated scheduling."