It doesn't indicate anything except standard procedure. The court process prescribes response dates automatically when motions are filed. However, what that system does not take into account is the fact that lawyers have other cases, not to mention that holidays and travel plans intervene, along with any of a number of other events that can disrupt the normal timelines. Things can and do happen all the time.
There is a factor called professional courtesy, which basically recognizes this. Essentially, lawyers on both sides do not contest what are pretty much standard requests to delay filing dates if they are not excessive and do not appear to be a tactic to delay. The judges also understand this, it's just part of the "business" so to speak.
If one party does feel that the other party is using motions to postpone as a delaying tactic, they can oppose the motion, however, unless there is clear evidence that the other party is using this as a tactic to delay, the judge is more likely than not to grant the extension. Keep in mind as well that if the judge themself sense one party is using requests to postpone the filing of documents, they can simply deny the extension.
If you have followed this or any other litigation involving a stock, you surely must of noticed by now that every time someone sneezes the tea leaves are read and predictions abound. However, when is the last time in this or any other court case that you've seen a single one come true? This is standard operating procedure, nothing more.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
