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

p ”`'' '“‘_‘—““""__‘_“’“" —- _
p —-·J"“ e 2:91-cv—00180-RNC Document 500 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT j ‘ p A i
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICIJT i
PJ., etal. : CIVIL AOTION NO;] {Q: QQ} l
Plaintmfs : 2:9lCV00ll 80(RNC) yi,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al. I {
Defendants : OCTOBER. 5, 2004
t
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME p
_, The defendants in the above action respectfully move tlie Court for an extension of time
\, up and including November 22, 2004 within which to respond to plaintiffs’ motion for an award
- of costs and attorneys’ fees. In support of this motion, the defendants respectfully submit:
K ` 1. Defendants just received plaintiffs’ motion with its accompanying memorandum and
lengthy appended materials. . i
· _ 1
' 2. Undersigned counsel has a long planned family trip sicheduled which will keep him out i
i p of state from October ll through October 19, 2004. In additiori, undersigned counsel has three
Q` -r separate court briefs due at the end of October, in addition to nirmerous hearings and coun
\; L appearances including an anticipated State Supreme Court argument and an oral argument in the
_ Sbjeff v. O’Neill litigation in the ensuing weeks. i
r"""‘·, ij. . `_ , i i
Tg i rw ,3. Undersigned counsel will require further time to review plaintiffs’ submission,
Q -.l., _
rg. _-#» - ifftcluding analysis of the controlling law.
fi I in E l . T I . . . ?
K ._ ;» 4. Undersigned counsel has attempted to ascertain Attotney Shaw’s position with respect
B-. Rio this motion but has been unsuccessful.
·; ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED ·
> TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED _ i
‘·~—:._ _ i Q i
4.; .
- “ é
Y l