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

Case 3:03-cv-O101€&l§VWE Document 41 Filed 12/@2003 Page 1 of 3 i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT J``` U
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ‘ " ‘ ` `I``"*“;1
-_--_F.-----------—In--l-----—_-_-----------·_-----'”"_-----------_--_’-'X •’\' {
JULIE DILLON RIPLEY MILLER, ; B58} tint I2 A to- 26
= Cass N<>·03—<§Ve1Q.1.6 IRNQJLQFMD
Plaintiff, : i.F‘¤`S lifiz? s_ g iff&i="* l
I _iIiii_ I {itil} l
— against- : December ll, 2003
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
···········— —-—————————— ·--· ——------—--—— —···-·-·— --------- —····· ------------ ·····——X
JOINT MOTION REGARDING PRE-TRIAL ISSUES
In furtherance of the efficient administration of this proceeding, the parties to this action i
together bring this Joint Motion Regarding Pre-Trial Issues (the "Joint Motion"). The parties
respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief: (i) that the schedule for expert
disclosure be revised; and (ii) that the discovery cut-off date be extended.
This is the third motion to amend the dates in the pre-trial schedule, but the first motion
seeking to extend the discovery cut-oft`. The first and second motions sought only to extend the
deadlines for expert discovery. As of the date of this motion, the parties have diligently pursued and
exchanged discovery, including the following: (i) both parties have propounded, and responded to,
document requests and interrogatories; (ii) depositions ofthe parties and various non--party witnesses
have been commenced and/or completed; (iii) both parties have produced "non-rebuttal" expert
reports.
The parties submit that, for the following reasons, there is good cause to grant this motion.

“_‘”‘T`”T`+%————- A- ¤..L -.L._

~ Case 3:03-cv-O101p¤\9IWE Document 41 Filed 12/iL%2003 Page 2 of 3· I
First, plaintiff filed a motion to compel on December 3, 2003, concerning, inter alia,
whether the deposition of several Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses to be produced by defendant
should be held in Connecticut or Florida. Under the Court’s motion rules, that motion I
may not be fully briefed until January 4, 2004. Once. the motion is decided, those
depositions will have to be scheduled and completed. The parties do not expect to be able
to accomplish that by the current discovery cutoff 5 January l2, 2004.
Second, defendant will shortly be filing a motion to compel, which raises the issues {
raised in an earlier motion that the Court recently denied without prejudice. Among other
things, defendant cannot complete the deposition of plaintiff until the document
production disputes at issue in that motion are resolved.
Third, the time period for completion of non-rebuttal expert depositions, rebuttal expert E
reports, and rebuttal expert depositions was shortened as. a result of the previous motions
(which motions extended the date for exchange of non—rebuttal expert reports without
extending the discovery cutoff). Given the number of non-rebuttal expert reports
produced (a total of four), the parties expect they will require additional time to take ’
depositions and procure rebuttal reports. If the Court extends the discovery cut—off, then
this adjustment to the expert disclosure schedule can be accomplished within the newly
extended discovery period.
Fourth, the parties are not seeking to extend any additional deadlines set by the Court,
including the May 2004 date for placement on the trial ready list.
The one issue on which the parties are unable to agree is the date to which the discovery cut—off i
should be adjourned. It is defendant’s position that the cut—off should be adjourned to a date
certain - February 13, 2004. It is plaintiffs position that the cut-off should be adjoumed to a date
that is thirty days after the Court rules on plaintiffs December 3, 2003 motion to compel.
Defendant acknowledges that, if a date certain is used, additional adjournment(s) might be
1
required depending on the date on which the motion to compel is decided. Both parties desire to
complete discovery as quickly as possible. Under the circumstances, the parties agree that the
t
Court should determine the date to which the discovery—cr1toff should be adj ourned. [
After reviewing the Joint Motion, and finding good cause, the Court hereby ORDERS: i
(i) The discovery cut—off is adjourned to [February 13, 2004] or [thirty days after the i
Court rules on plaintiffs December 3, 2003 motion to compel]
(ii) The schedule for expert discovery is amended as follows:
2

.. Case 3:03-cv-O101@W$VWE Document 41 Filed 12/{1262003 Page 3 of·3 {
Non-Rebuttal Expert Depositions: December 24, 2003
Rebuttal Expert Reports: January 12, 2004
Rebuttal Expert Depositions: February 12, 2004
Hon. Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & BEGOS & HORGAN, LLP U
WALKER, LLP
g 9%/ { i, ’
BYE ' /¢-· u 0 5
Thomas P. Friedman, Esq. (ct 24947) Patrick W. Begos ct19090)
Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff
1055 Washington Boulevard 327 Riverside Avenue
Stamford, CT 06901-2217 Westport, CT 06880
(203) 961-7400 (203) 226-9990
(203) 359-3031 (fax) (203) 222-4833 (fax)