United States District Court,

S.D. Illinois.

Teresa CARRETTA, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.

MAY TRUCKING CO., Defendant.

Civil No. 09-158-MJR.

 

Sept. 17, 2010.

 

ORDER

 

PROUD, United States Magistrate Judge.

 

Before the Court is defendant May Trucking Company’s motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s revised scheduling order dated July 29, 2010. (Doc. 55.) The defendant requests an additional 60 days to complete discovery.

 

The Court previously stated:

 

The Court appreciates the difficulties associated with litigating an action stemming from an incident in California. Nevertheless, the Court’s trial calendar can only accommodate changing the trial setting in the rarest and most extraordinary circumstances, which are not evident in this situation.

 

(Doc. 52.) The Court also warned that no further extensions would be granted.

 

The Court’s position and crowded trial docket have not changed. The parties may agree to alter the discovery deadline, provided the dispositive motion deadline, settlement conference date, final pretrial conference setting, and trial date are not affected. Any such agreement must be in writing if it is to be enforced by the Court; such agreements are not to be filed with the Court except in connection with a motion to enforce.

 

The parties may find that the docket of the District’s Magistrate Judges can accommodate an extended pretrial schedule. The forms necessary to consent to have a Magistrate Judge decide the case are available on the Court’s web site.

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the subject motion for reconsideration (Doc. 55) is DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.