Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I t“—_”""`"“"“—""“`“"““—"‘—‘"‘·*····——··—-———————~—-
Case 3:03-cv-0101 -WWE Document 48 Filed 12[22/2003 P_ _ 1 of 1 _ I
I _ I. . (I) I] Ilggr/\Jl¤l\0 w\kvII1vIrlrLl
4 I-l qnuas in
I g 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
; ·—t M __ __ _
I IE 3 DISTRICT OF CONNECTIQIIIIYIIQI III] A Q. LIU
E E .5 , .
I EI E E JULIE `lj;5 i_lsl?§'i"]IEILZ’ErlifillalI _
I *;-1. I g. DILLOII RIPLEY MILLER. ,NQii3:lt7PP>€ I é E I; Plaintiff and Counterclaim
I *5} .2 Defendant, I
I EI EL S .
I E § i — against-
§ F ‘
I w B Ig Q MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION,
UI III EI October 29 2003
- E *0 rn ¤
I; U 3 Ei Defendant and Counterclaimant. I
-»-I -v-I `
I rc ·-I LH O I
¤-I {U U)
I o I: >»
LI o er
I JE Ii III JOINT MOTION REGARDING PRE-TRIAL ISSUES I
I E III . . . . .
M M E II In furtherance of the efficient administration of this proceeding, the parties to this
I - o ¤ .¤.
-I-I LH V1 ·t—*
5 ,5 .m g action collectively bring this Joint Motion Regarding Pre-Trial Issues (the "Joint Motion"). The
CI GJ {D
E §‘ IE § parties respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief: (i) that Plaintiff be
H rtl H
D4 (1)
4% E "E I -. permitted to add an affirmative defense; and (ii) that the schedule for expert disclosure be revised I
s: IJ ¤~ I I
Ii fg ‘*g I without impacting the discovery cut-off date. I
»—I Ll-1 4J H _
§“ rg Ei _m I The parties are not seeking to extend the final discovery deadline of January 12, I
ru .-I U
ui I: e .
ij "' E, S. 2004. This is the second motion to amend the dates in the Pre-Trial Schedule, and there is good I
.,-| n
"O · D rn I
Q Q. if cause to grant this Joint Motion. First, Plaintiff is seeking to amend its Reply to Defendant’s I
ru 3 rn
Q rn - I
B E QE D counterclaim and in the interest of efficiency, Defendant is not objecting to this amendment.
-I-l (H N I J- . _` I
§ jr E E $15 Second, Defendant is seeking additional time to complete non—rebuttal expert I
g g CI =¤ I ·=I· Iv? I
E) H -2 CZ repo£s by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The reports are currently due on November 10, 2003, and I
·- ;·=•= I - I'?} I" I
"¤ .I=·-,¢?> N · , .. ., . . . . I
IE Q ' `”"Def`éc_ifJidant!foresees that, desprte reasonable diligence, additional t1me will be necessary. Plaintiff I
'CIGJCDE "- C.;} Inn": U .
EI g 3 II CI **does;__not Qibject to an extension of the time to exchange non-rebuttal expert reports, provided that
Qs Li u; ,*2-3 "§
(IJ (I} S
- é §* the extension applies to both parties. An adjustment to the pre-trial schedule can be ordered I
. I
· l
I-? __ .
DLI ___ ,,._