CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. v. Fitch, 1:23-cv-00139

Plaintiff, Cumis Insurance Society, sued multiple defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy.
After removal to federal court, only one defendant (Fitch) responded and retained counsel; others remained unserved.
The operative scheduling order set the close of fact discovery for May 3, 2025, with trial scheduled for April 2027.
On May 2, 2025—one day before the discovery deadline—Plaintiff moved for a 120-day extension, citing difficulties in serving defendants and initial efforts to locate them.
Defendants opposed, and the court ordered Plaintiff not to file a reply brief without leave.
Plaintiff also requested leave to file a reply and for a discovery teleconference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument (Fitch)	Held
Extension of discovery deadline	Plaintiff argued efforts to locate unserved defendants justify extension; no prejudice to defendants	Fitch argued Plaintiff failed to show diligence or good cause for extension	Denied
Good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)	Plaintiff stated efforts were ongoing to bring all parties into litigation	Fitch contended Plaintiff did not demonstrate required diligence	No good cause; denied
Leave to file reply brief	Plaintiff submitted a two-sentence request for leave	Not specifically addressed	Denied
Request for discovery teleconference	Plaintiff requested as an alternative to clarify deadline extension motion	Not specifically addressed	Denied as moot

Levey v. Brownstone Inv. Grp., LLC, [citation="590 F. App'x 132"] (3d Cir. 2014) (leave to file reply is discretionary with district court)
St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., 291 F.R.D. 75 (D. Del. 2013) (courts disfavor reply briefs unless new arguments/facts are raised)