Case Activity (97)

1. Order | Filed: September 21, 2026 | Entered: September 21, 2026 Conser v. Reidman-Wegman Canandaigua, LLC et al

   Civil Rights: Accommodations | New York Western

   Text Order ~Util - Set Hearings

   TEXT ORDER. A telephone status conference is hereby set for October 6, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. before the undersigned. Counsel will be provided dial-in instructions in advance of the conference. SO ORDERED.Signed by Hon. Colleen D. Holland on 9/21/2026. (BNS)

2. Order | Filed: August 03, 2026 | Entered: August 03, 2026 Conser v. Reidman-Wegman Canandaigua, LLC et al

   Civil Rights: Accommodations | New York Western

   Text Order

   TEXT ORDER. Pursuant to the status report filed on July 30, 2026, the parties are requesting an extension of certain case management deadlines. (Dkt. 109). However, all of the deadlines at issue have expired under the operative Scheduling Order. (See Dkt. 95). Moreover, this is now the second time that the parties have requested a comprehensive, retroactive extension of these same deadlines. (See Dkt. 94). And in both instances, the parties did not request an extension until the Court sought an update on the status of the case. (See Dkt. 89; Dkt. 108).

   Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party" and "exists where the moving party is unable to comply with a required deadline despite the exercise of due diligence." Rupp v. City of Buffalo, 328 F.R.D. 69, 70 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (quotations omitted). The Court's discretion to modify a scheduling order under Rule 16(b) is limited by the good cause requirement. Id. at 71. Further, "[a] scheduling order entered by a court is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril," and "the dates contained in such an order are not mere suggestive guideposts." Hassoun v. Searls, 467 F. Supp. 3d 111, 134 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (quotations omitted).

   Here, the Court cannot determine whether the parties have acted diligently because their request for an extension does not include any explanation of why they were unable to meet the deadlines in the Scheduling Order. The parties have accordingly failed to demonstrate good cause. To the extent the parties seek additional modifications to the operative Scheduling Order, they must make such request through a motion in which they demonstrate good cause. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Colleen D. Holland on 8/3/2026. (BNS)

3. 95 additional result(s)