Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

i · _. Ca ·e 3:00-cv—OO339-RNC Document 1 19 Filed O1/30/2006 Page 1 of 1
. //f <. > Q N
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO¥RT_1_’u_$] Qi; A {Gr Q2?} i
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICU ° " " y
ri-ioiviAs o·coNNoR * omker uo.‘s£06’cifaé9L (RNC , .» ·*‘`' i
_ Plaintiff, I yy -
V. I \
LYNNE B. PIERSON, et al. *
Defendants. *
**1%***********•k*•k**•k*•k*•k***•k•k*****•k******#• * 23, =
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND T0 DEFENDANTS’ J
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT N
fj The plaintiff requests an extension of time until March 24, 2006 to respond to the l
ljefendahfs Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants’ Motion for Summary J
, I. l Jtidgment is dated January 13, 2006. Q
- F' This extension of time is requested because a settlement conference is
P5 scheduled with Magistrate Judge Smith on February 22, 2006. If the case is settled,
\ Q there will be no need to respond to the motion. If the case is not settled at that time, this
3; i motion will provide 30 days to respond. i
A ;>,
Q'; Q, This is the plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time to respond to the l
l—l -·-I ‘
cg) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. U
2 Attorney Alexandra Voccio, counsel for the defendants, has no objection to this l
§_ motion for an extension of time.
cl i
IU - i
M lm ~
an
ui N
c.» l
° l
"' · .
=—?
(H 1
E'
(6 l
R l
§
•¤
— l