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

A 4+ " C A ,3é§34:v—01016>W“E Document 144 Filed 06/1 $@05 Pagmdvl Ol
` . ` , b_\ _, . `
(\ . A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * .7 ~ · . _e11 .
A ` DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 57 jj; ;~jg»’_§?,,
HARTFoRD r E ·`~‘ i ,1_
-—----—--- # --—---------------------—--------—---------------------------- x j
JULIE DILLON RIPLEY MILLER, 2 UN ~— ij p Q, [ Lp
: Case H 03-CV-1016 (RNCSAII i
Plaintiff, i ;
, ¤ · J I1I ;*ni **; I =
— against — : · _
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION, ‘
V H Defendant.
-·-————-- ·—·— q ·——·--—·—-————-··-·——·—·——··——----——·——--—-—---------- X _
Q Vw SEJOINT MOTION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE
‘ 4 +--::5 I
W,herea§%e parties to this action have both served motions for summary judgment in this
mon o;él\/Ia&@2005 (Doc Nos. 132 and 139);
Wct°2reas, the Clerk has provided that plaintiff s opposition to defendant’s motion is due June
1 ·r-·· ~ 10, 2005, and that defendant’s opposition to plaintiffs motion is due June 14, 2005;
' 3Q ’
' Whereas, undersigned counsel for plaintiff, Patrick W. Begos, was on trial when defendant’s
. ‘ 1:]
”° \
Q - motion was served. Moreover, due to the breadth of the issues raised in the motions, as well as both
` (U 1Ct
rg "* jg? parties’ counsels’ trial and other commitments, the parties jointly request that the briefing schedule
I as
· O ..c: .
U? _ 10 be modified as follows: -
’a<§ jll ~ E > Plaintiff shall oppose defendant’s motion by June 27, 2005;
JJ ..7 `· ` M
gl I .8 > Defendant shall oppose plaintiff’s motion by July 1, 2005.
(D M ’
_ ’i’’ W > Both parties shall reply by August 1, 2005. »
mn
§ Whereas, is previous motion for extension of these qb?i;efing schedules has been filed;
co` Accordinglyylthe parties respectfully request that the Cqiirt extend the parties’ time to oppose,
5 and reply to, the respective summary judgment motions, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.
_ ll