Free Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:OO—cv-00705-CS Document 143 Filed O4/27/Z? Page 1 of 1
GK . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
\ FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
V ) _ Master File N0. 3:00CV-705 (CF =
IN RE: PE CORPORATION p 5
SECURITIES LITIGATION ; February 16, 2005 j
)
CONSENTED TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE PAGE LIMITS j
Plaintiffs David Berlin and Vinh Vuong ("plaintiffs") hereby move to
Local Rule 7(a) for an increase to the page limits for plaintiffs’ in
rré :;j;? .Q. »
opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ("defendants’
cit.: me 1 li
` ~ Zl> B ., .
defendants’ reply memorandum in further support of defendants’ motionijglagfendgjrits PE;}
Corporation et al consent to the granting of this motion. In support of this niihtiogthe
parties represent:
L 1. On December 21, 2004, defendants filed their motion for summary q
E5 judgment, which plaintiffs intend to oppose. Plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition to
*3 j defendants’ motion is due to be filed with the Court by February 16, 2005.
k _g j 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 40 pages in length and
§ raises numerous factual and legal issues. In addition, defendants have referenced 55 y
·o j . . . . . . . . ~
\ g xhibits 1nthe1r motion, totaling hundreds of pages of documentary evidence,. In ord§
s H c·~ j ; ...·, E gui 2,, M
· t for plaintiffs to properly address the arguments raised in defendants’ motio1j{»;`¥p]§inti§ BW
R F .e~?>.·:x M .;··;·
S ir? c" `1
`\~ ¤ require a short extension of the page limit set forth in Local Rule 7(a). Accfdfdinglyb f
' N .€;2§—? m
® Q - ’~\plaintiffs request leave to file a 46-page memorandum in opposition to defef,tE§{lantsl°*° V ijji
. `>`”*P
motion. Defendants’ reply brief, which is due to be filed on March 23, 2005, will be no
longer than 15 pages. q 1 ·e