Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

--.. .... ..- 2.- .....-. -—--— ---——-_——--·- -·-··-—·7;.-............_.;TI
I ~ b‘Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 97 Filed 05/12/2004 Pagegpolf LPM I
fi gd q UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I I
§ § q DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ZUCIII IIFQ p I) A ,3 2
¤ 0 `" I' i QCI
g _`”"`“— I T;T£=}::.*;•T q,-. ,.,___
g § JULIE D LLON RIPLEY MILLER, g .I3<03~QUY`+|·l;@l C&{Ii*NC)(DPM)
N
EI 3 I Plaintiff and Counterclaim
I3 E q Defendant,
*" I
jg 3};* - against —
E E MERRI L LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION, _
H E April 23, 2004
qi _Q Defendant and Counterclaimant.
O .-I ,
O
N >. "‘“"_
·¤
` G5
3 IP. I JOINT MOTION TID AMEND PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE
cu "" `——_—_
as I
*;*1 E Whereas, the parties to this action diligently have conducted discovery in good
·¤ m
g 5 faith, arId had sought to complete discovery by the original deadline of March I5, 2004, since
GJ I:
·¤
§ ~§ extendep to April 30, 2004 including twenty depositions since the inception of this action;
Q. u .
gig Whereas, the parties have tiled four previous motions to amend the pre-trial
4-* q) I
E, Q schedul . The first two motions sought extensions onl of certain intermediate pre-trial
: I Y
'U gg I
Ig *5, deadlines, without extending the discovery cut—off date. The third motion, tiled December I 1,
»—I q;
§ § 2003 soI.Ight an extension of the discovery cut~off to either February I3, 2004 (as requested by
U
OJ I
.3 E defendaiit) or thirty days after the Court ruled on plaintiff s December 3, 2003 motion to compel
¤—| .
·—I - .
I3 S '? (as requested by plaintiff). By order dated December 22, 2003, the Court extended the discovery
{0 2 I
ig cutoff tcI March 15, 2004. By further order dated March 25, 2004, the Court extended the
P I
O —
Q .§ discovery cutoff to April 30, 2004 based, in part, on the fact that certain discovery motions
U —·—c
Q 1 Ig argued _efore this Court on January 20, 2004 remained sub judice before this Court;
.¤ 2 - ‘
. M
E? S I5 Whereas, certain bona fide discovery disputes delayed the discovery process,
Hi, g `·~ LJ ,
g B EQ E re:®.ltin e tiling of a motion to compel by each party ("l\/Iotions to Compel") which were
qi}; <~I pj-¢_tJ,,
{ .¤*T..
. gg I (rf"
eq:-· I Z9
I
j- >1 PT -‘-s - ·-» · ·- ·-·· · be
si-{gi ·¤¤· ; e,·, · ·: ,e,· A ee-; e- ~ - -~ee — --