Case Information
*1 Case 2:24-cv-03005-SHL-cgc Document 38 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID
143
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION
CONTRINNA PATTERSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) v. ) No. 2:24-cv-3005-SHL-cgc
)
BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM ANIMAL )
HEALTH USA, INC., )
)
Defendant. ) ______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Defendant Boehringer-Ingelheim Animal Health USA, Inc. requests a seven-day extension of time in which to file its dispositive motions. (ECF No. 37.) Boehringer-Ingelheim requests the extension because it “requires additional time to . . . review” deposition transcripts of its employees and incorporate their testimony into a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37 at PageID 140–41.) Defendant asserts that these transcripts of depositions that occurred in late October were not received until November 3rd through 5th. (Id. at PageID 140.) Defendant’s current deadline for filing dispositive motions is November 19, 2025. (ECF No. 22 at PageID 103.) It has consulted with Plaintiff Contrinna Patterson and she does not object to the Motion. (ECF No. 37 at PageID 141.)
A court may only exercise discretion to grant an extension for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause is shown by a party’s diligence in attempting to meet the deadlines, lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party, and consideration of the length or number of extensions requested. Ky. Peerless Distilling, LLC v. Fetzer Vineyards Corp., No. 3:22-CV-037-CHB, *2 Case 2:24-cv-03005-SHL-cgc Document 38 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID
144
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 254073, at *2 (W.D. Ky. May 19, 2022) (citing Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)).
Plaintiffs, who do not object, should not be prejudiced by a relatively short seven-day extension of time for Defendants to file dispositive motions here. Additionally, motions for summary judgment rely on discovery materials, and resolution of the forthcoming motions would benefit from complete, accurate information. Finally, this is the second request for extension of time in this matter and was timely filed. [1] For good cause shown, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED . Defendants shall have up to and including November 25, 2025, to file dispositive motions. No additional extension will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED , this 14th day of November, 2025.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[1] The Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Motion to Compel (ECF No. 32) was denied as moot because of the Plaintiff’s discovery response. (ECF No. 33.) 2