In
some
legal
practice
situations,
litigants
and
their
attorneys
can
pretty
much
guarantee
that
a
court
will
grant
a
request.
For
instance,
if
all
parties
consent
to
a
given
application,
and
there
is
no
prejudice
to
any
other
party,
courts
will
usually
approve
a
request
in
the
interests
of
justice.
However,
judges
do
not
always
act
like
a
rubber
stamp
and
approve
requests
even
if
there
is
no
opposition.
Attorneys
should
not
rely
on
a
judge
granting
an
application,
even
if
nobody
opposes
the
request,
since
courts
might
still
have
a
variety
of
reasons
for
refusing
to
grant
a
given
motion.
Earlier
in
my
career,
I
litigated
a
case
in
which
an
adversary
filed
a
motion
against
my
client,
that,
if
granted,
would
have
somewhat
prejudiced
my
client.
I
told
my
client
about
the
motion,
but
my
client
instructed
me
not
to
oppose
the
motion
because
my
client
did
not
want
to
pay
the
attorneys’
fees
associated
with
opposing
the
motion
and
because
the
motion
would
not
greatly
prejudice
my
client.
The
court
took
months
to
render
a
decision,
which
I
thought
was
weird
since
the
court
usually
acted
quickly
and
because
no
one
filed
opposition
papers.
Eventually,
the
court
issued
a
multipage-decision
denying
the
motion.
The
court
went
into
great
detail
about
why
it
did
not
have
the
power
to
grant
the
motion
in
question.
In
order
to
reach
this
decision,
the
court
parsed
out
language
in
several
documents
against
very
discrete
lines
of
caselaw
I
had
never
seen
before.
Since
the
motion
had
not
been
granted,
my
adversary
had
to
expend
considerable
resources
to
accomplish
what
they
wanted
to
achieve.
When
I
told
my
client
about
the
positive
outcome,
the
client
was
ecstatic.
The
client
thanked
me
for
all
of
my
work
on
the
case,
and
I
think
my
client
might
have
credited
me
for
this
positive
result
even
though
I
did
literally
nothing
to
achieve
this
outcome.
Perhaps
if
I
had
filed
opposition
papers,
I
would
have
confused
the
issues,
and
it
would
have
been
less
likely
that
my
client
would
have
achieved
a
good
result.
Courts
may
deviate
from
expectations
when
it
comes
to
case
management
issues
as
well.
In
a
jurisdiction
in
which
I
practice,
litigants
are
given
a
particular
period
for
discovery,
but
this
can
be
extended
by
motion.
If
all
of
the
parties
consent,
a
discovery
extension
is
almost
always
granted.
Indeed,
it
is
not
uncommon
for
courts
to
grant
several
extensions
of
the
discovery
deadline
in
this
jurisdiction,
and
usually,
courts
will
warn
the
parties
when
they
are
approaching
a
point
at
which
the
court
will
not
extend
discovery
any
further.
I
once
had
a
case
in
this
jurisdiction
in
which
the
parties
had
not
yet
asked
the
court
for
a
discovery
period
extension.
With
the
consent
of
all
parties,
a
motion
to
extend
was
filed
so
that
everyone
could
complete
expert
discovery
and
a
few
other
outstanding
matters
before
discovery
ended.
To
everyone’s
surprise,
the
court
refused
to
grant
a
discovery
extension!
I
am
not
sure
why
the
court
did
not
grant
an
extension
like
other
courts
in
that
jurisdiction
would
nearly
100%
of
the
time.
Perhaps
there
was
some
pressure
to
clear
dockets
and
expedite
cases.
In
any
event,
all
of
the
lawyers
had
to
scramble
to
complete
outstanding
discovery
to
prepare
the
case
for
the
summary
judgment
stage
and
beyond.
As
I
recall,
the
refusal
to
grant
a
discovery
extension
did
lead
to
an
earlier
resolution
of
the
matter,
which
is
a
positive
outcome.
In
any
event,
attorneys
who
practice
for
a
while
in
a
jurisdiction
may
believe
they
can
predict
when
a
court
will
act
a
certain
way
based
on
their
experience
and
the
circumstances
of
a
case.
However,
courts
often
will
not
act
as
a
rubber
stamp,
and
attorneys
should
not
rely
on
a
court
to
approve
a
request
before
it
has
been
decided
upon.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of
The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of
Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at
[email protected].