GENE CARTER, District Judge
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion requesting that the class period in this case be extended until May 1, 2006. The Court will deny Plaintiffs' request.
Although there appears to be some confusion on Defendants part regarding whether the class has been closed, see Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Item No. 150) at 23, the record makes clear that the class is now closed. When the class was certified in this case, the Court left it open-ended because there was no suggestion by either party that the alleged unlawful practice had been discontinued. See Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Docket Item No 21). Thereafter, however, the parties agreed to conclude discovery at December 31, 2004, and, with the Court's approval, Plaintiffs provided public notice of the pendency of the lawsuit. In that notice, Plaintiffs limited the time period of the class to strip searches conducted between November 19, 1996 and December 31, 2004.
The final pretrial conference is scheduled for April 13, 2006, and the case is on the May 2006 trial list. If the Court were to extend the class period, then it would be necessary to reopen discovery. This would, undoubtedly, delay trial. Given the history of the discovery efforts by the parties in this case, the Court finds that it is not in the interest of the class members, or of judicial economy, to extend the class period until May 1, 2006. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Class Period be, and it is hereby, DENIED.