A Minor Observation on a Topic of Minor Interest

separator

A Minor Observation on a Topic of Minor Interest


Judge Davis—somewhat of a household name to those who practice in the Eastern District of Texas—has issued a number of new standing orders regarding his courtroom and case management procedures.

We make one comment on a seemingly–mundane and unobjectionable order, relating to motions for extension of time to answer, excerpted here in relevant part:

“The 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. 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.—Allows for up to 45 days in extension).

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.

The Court has also seen an increase in unopposed motions for extension of time to file responses and replies to various motions. Parties routinely agree to a two–month or more extension of time to file a response. These delays slow down case progress and, for the most part, are unnecessary. Thus, the Court ORDERS that no more motions for extension of time to file a response/reply/surreply shall be granted absent a showing of good cause.”

We have no objection, of course, to the laudable goal of efficiently resolving cases, and of avoiding a clogged docket. However, in an effort to avoid a declaratory judgment action, it is not uncommon for plaintiffs to “sue first, talk second”—filing an initial lawsuit to secure their position as the first to file, and then engaging in licensing talks in an effort to reach a quick settlement. While we at IPWise do not condone this tactical approach, we do note that it may bear on why extensions are increasingly common in a case’s early stages—and that it is not simply a defendant who may be to blame for a request to extend the time to answer.

Posted by Stacy Stitham

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
separator

No comments so far!

separator

Leave a Comment