Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery was denied. "[Plaintiff] has argued for various extensions [of the pretrial schedule] on the grounds that its new counsel regards as relevant certain facts which [plaintiff's] previous counsel apparently considered irrelevant. The undersigned is sufficiently experienced as counsel and judge to know that lawyers often look at matters somewhat differently - what is important, what isn’t; should I ask that or not; etc. For better or worse, parties are stuck with their counsel."
Petter Investments, Inc. v. Hydro Engineering Inc. et al., 1-07-cv-01033 (MIWD July 21, 2009, Memorandum Order) (Quist, J.)