Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ordering that plaintiff could not depose defendants’ representatives, even though she had served notices within the deadline, because she did not demonstrate good cause for her failure to follow up
• explaining that the existence of prejudice to a party opposing modification of a scheduling order may be considered by the court and may supply an additional reason to deny a motion to modify a scheduling order
• finding where “a party has done little or nothing to schedule the depositions until the deadline arrives, ‘good cause’ does not exist”
• finding no good cause where coun- sel did “little or nothing to schedule depositions” until shortly before the deadline
• “My discretion to grant that relief is limited by Rule 16(b)(4), which requires ‘good cause’ for an extension of a scheduling order deadline.”
• de- clining to extend deadlines where counsel did “little or nothing to sched- ule depositions” until shortly before the deadline

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).