Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-006 4-CFD Document 26 Filed O3/O4/2004 Page 1 of 3
I I I ( I I
` I -»-r ~ ..., -’ I
I I ‘ I
I I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
I . I I
I BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM )
I NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and )
MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., ) ·
I `
) .
I .
Plaintiffs, )
I ) CIVIL ACTION l}I__Q. I
I v. ) 3:03 CV tl.06·¢lI4 (§) I
I I
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) ;;;;···II .1;-I ===· mm I
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and ) gygj ,.g We I
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., ) {E;&i§..CI
I ) A `U I
II I ·¥~I IPP r~.> I
Defendants ) · ‘ gg: ·· I
I ) MARCH 2;g£i200»,ij
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION T0 MOTION FOR EXTENSION
- OFITIME IN WHICH TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ . I
OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS I
I I
l_ I
Plaintiffs hereby object to the excessive, 29 day or longer, extension of time I
I I
I sought by the Defendants to tile a Reply Brief pursuant to Local Rule 7(d). It appears
that the Defendants are pursuing a consistent pattern of delay in this case.
I I I
Counsel for the Plaintiffs extended great courtesy to counsel for the Defendants in I
allowing numerous extensions of time, which this Court granted, for the Defendants to I
file an Answer} Thereafter, without any prior warning, Defendants filed a Motion to
I If Defendants truly had wished to coordinate a schedule with Plaintiffs, they should have raised the issue
I in response to the Rule 26(f) Report filed by the Plaintiffs. In fact, after months of trying to negotiate a
Joint Rule 26(f) Report, the Plaintiffs were forced to tile a Report without a signature of the Defendants I
because the Defendants simply refused to respond to numerous requests for comments or approval of the I
Proposed Rule 26(D Report. See, Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(f) Report dated January 30, 2004. Thus the reason for
.· I the extension, a claimed need to coordinate, appears to be a pretext. I
I I I
I .
I I
e-I=
;·I ;r` ;-I ;. _ _ , , _ _ I I _ _ I I - - I - I - I - ; __` TI __` TI __` in if Y" ;-I in ;-l T" ;-I U" ;-I U" ;-I U"
I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII A
I I IIi I
_- A I I __ `i‘I‘I‘I·I·I-I-I - IIII

l J
asa 3:03-cv-OOGGZQFFD Document 26 Filed O3/04/EOO4 Page 2 of 3
. I ' ‘
it l
M l
_! tsmiss on January 27, 2004, more than eight months after this actron was commenced. I
I On February 17, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss, within the 21 days specified by Local Rule 7(a)(l). Pursuant to Local Rule 7(d),
Defendants Reply Brief was due within I0 business days, or by March 2, 2004.
I On March lst about 2:35 p.m. counsel for the Defendants requested an extension I
I of time by email communication. The undersigned responded at about 4:54 p.m. that
afternoon that the extension sought was far too extensive but that the undersigned would I
consent to a reasonable extension of three days to March 5, if the time was necessary to
I complete the Brief.
I Defendants have not met the requirement for an extension of time under Local
I Rule 7(b)(2) in that counsel has made no particularized showing of why it cannot meet
I the particular briefing deadline. Instead, defense counsel seeks to delay this case merely
. because the briefing schedule in the related consolidated case has been extended. I
Counsel for the Defendants never made this proposal before the undersigned counsel
I worked to file its Brief within the timeframe required by the Local Rules. Defense
I counsel now seeks an extension of time of at least 28 days or longer to file a simple
I Reply Brief Moreover, what the Defendants intend to brief in the related action is
irrelevant to what Defendants must brief in a Reply Brief in this action. Under Local 7(d)
.= a
I a Reply Brief must be strictly confined to a discussion of the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ -
Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in this action.
I
I l
I 2 l
"‘“‘“"l; lt"“‘ I

I I I
ase 3:03-cv-OOGC4-PFD Document 26 Filed O3/Q4/5004 Page 3 of 3
I WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully object to the I
I
excessive extension sought by the Defendants. I
PLAINTIFFS, BRUCE CHARLES RYAN,
RUSSELL WILLIAM NEWTON, I
I I ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and MERIT I
CAPITAL ASSOCIATES INC.,
5 I
I I J
I I BY I
I . eter . Nolin (ct06223) I
I Jay H. Sandal; (ct06703)
I l Sandak Hennessey & Greco LLP
. 970 Summer Street
I Stamford, CT 06905 I
(203) 425-4200
(203) 325-8608 (fax) I
pnolin(@,shglaw.com I
CERTIFICATION
I I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by facsimile and regular
mail, on March 2, 2004, to the following counsel: I
I James R. Hawkins, II, Esq.
I Finn Dixon & Herling, LLP I
One Landmark Square, Suite 1400
I Stamford, CT 06901-2689
I I Mario DiNatale I
Silver Golub & Teitell LLP I
I 184 Atlantic Street I
P.O.Box 389 I
Stamford CT 06904-0389 "
I I 4 I
eter M. Nolin
I I
5 I I
I I
3 I I