Case No. 98-40533.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division at Lafayette.
July 14, 2005
DECISION ORDER
ROBERT GRANT, Bankruptcy Judge
At Fort Wayne, Indiana, on July 14, 2005.
On June 30, 2005, Enodis Corporation filed a motion to enlarge time for completing pre-trial discovery. In part, the motion asks that the discovery cut-off be extended pending resolution of discovery issues raised by Enodis’ motion to compel filed on June 24, 2005. As the court has already denied that motion by its order of July 8, 2005, this is an insufficient basis to extend the current deadline.
The remaining basis for the motion arises out of the deposition of a third party’s expert witness taken in California. Problems arose in the questioning of that witness and Enodis plans to ask the court in California to compel the witness to answer its questions. As a result, Enodis has asked this court to indefinitely extend the discovery deadline pending a decision from the court in California.
The court is not inclined to extend the discovery deadline indefinitely while it waits for another court to rule upon a motion which has not been and may never be filed. Furthermore, Enodis’ motion is noticeably silent concerning the date of the deposition, when it was scheduled, when it was to take place and when the difficulties arose. Such information is critical. For example, if the dispute was a longstanding one which Enodis has only now chosen to address, there would be little basis for the requested extension. If, however, the need for this deposition and the problems
Page 2
concerning it are only recent developments, things might be viewed differently. As it is, however, Enodis has failed to give the court what it needs in order to properly evaluate its motion for an enlargement of time and the motion is, therefore, DENIED.
SO ORDERED.