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

N N iii, .ii0iii|i0|i!iii`i‘t 00 ‘‘`` `C|é§QNi3i|03-cv-61016:WWE 0 D`i5iurh0ent`1'130 0 Filed 01/03/2005 0 Page 1 0f 00 0 0 0 00 0 0
I
N UN;)*1;gFI1?Rsgr,’Ig; DISTRICT COURTNF D
I N II CONNECTICUT N
0 3i}}Xé`i5il£lZiQ"QI5i£{§ri3ijiéi}`iZr`ii}Qi§.iiQ ``”````”" `_```"``` T 2,,, Jiri -;, A ri is
N Plaintiff f C0‘“?‘?:°?{fé`%¢;i‘€I0?t‘ii‘iii?tDFM’ N
¤ · . I .» . ~.> i » . I
; .\E’i‘i`i"003t‘< fi, CT. N
-— against- : December 30, 2004
MERRILIN LYNCH CREDIT CoRPoRAI‘IoN,
Defendant.
·. ...-----... ....-,. ........ .. ........ ...--.,... ........ ..... .... .,,.--,. ......... X I
JoINT MOTION TO An/I1itND PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE I
Whd teas, the parties to this action diligeritly have conducted discovery in good faith, and had
sought to domeplete discovery by the originaldeadline of March 15, 2004, since extended to January i
7, 2005, irNN:lu.:ling approximately twenty depositions since the inception of this action;
WhdN¢ea.s, the parties have filed six previous motions to amend the pre-trs.·al schedule. The first
two motioN··ns sought extensions only of certainiintermediate pre-trial deadlines, without extending
the discovéNIry cut—off date. The third motion, filed December 11, 2003 sought air extension of the
discovery off to either February 13, 2004 tas requested by defendant) orthirty days after the N
Court ruledi ori plaintiffs December 3, 2003 motion to compel (as requested by plaintiff). By order
dated Deed-Nmher 22, 2003, the Cotut extended 0:he discovery cutoff to March 15,,2004. By further N
order dated March 25, 2004, the Court extended the discovery cutoff to April 3( li, 2-004 based, in part,
on the factINthat certain discovery motions argued before this Court on January 20, 2004 remained
N sub judice iiefore this Court. By further order: dated May 12, 2004, the Court extended the discovery
cutoff to Jdine 30, 2004, based, in part, on the fact that the discovery motions a rguied on January 20, N
N 2004 remaiineul sub judice before this Court.
l N I
2-) .. ;2, , ;I, __0_ __0_ _, ;,, ___;,, ___·_ _ ;J, ;Ar ___·_ _ ___;”___-H
2,..r;..r`2r...`2...;——¥-—;—;.,;._` - _"_"_`_`_`_"_"_ . ............ 7
_, ;,, __0_ _, __·_ _ ;Ar ;Jr __-_ _r ;A__-_ _r ;Jr *4 *4 2 ;Ar -7 ;Aur;A"—

llift:lilFii!!l?.'l!??ll;..l. . .... .. . .... . .l.|. .. .... . . . . . . .jl..|.... . . . . .. ,.. . .... . . .. .. . l .... . . . _,
lI Casel3:O3-cv-01016-WWE Document 113 Filed O1/O3/2005 Page 2 of 4
¤ r
Zi By lprdlers dated September 29, 20041 and November l0, 2004, the Court ruled on the three
motions tlr compel made by the parties, arrdrordered additional productiorr by both parties. By 0
Supersedil·}1g Scheduling Order dated November 16, 2004, the Court ordered: "All discovery, 0
including all discovery relating to expert witnesses, will be completed (not propounded), by January p
7, 2005." N J
Botliy parties have made production pursuant to the Court’s rulings on the motions to compel l
(though, al.; set forth below, MLCC has not completed production), the parties have scheduled 0
outstandinll; and/or uncompleted depositions, and are working to complete those depositions before
January 7, l}l0(i 5. It is apparent, however, than not all discovery can be completed by that date, despite l
the partiesl duae diligence. Specifically: l
a. Counsel for MLCC has advisedzthait, due to the magnitude ofthe search and backlog of y
e—;·mail requests, it will be unalrleto produce by January 7, 2005 the e-mails it was .
directed to produce in the Cou;rt’s November 10, 2004 order. Itlairntiff may require ,
additional discovery upon review of those emails.
b. Plaintiff recently completed producing documents that she was directed to produce in l
I the Court’s September 29, 2004 order. Defendant needs additional. time to evaluate
E these documents and determine rwhether they necessitate additional discovery. y
c. MLCC produced, on or about .De·::ember 21, 2004, its underwriting and power-ori
l jatrorney guidelines. MLCC’s counsel has recently acknowledged that additional J
I production may be forthcominglreggarding those guidelines. Plainsiffls expert, Richard
I Homberger (who previously produced an expert report regarding, inter alia, the J
underwriting of the loan at issue in this case, in which he expressly reserved the right l
lto amend or supplement his conclusions upon review of ML·CC"s guidelines), is
jpresently reviewing those documents. Given the holidays, it gs unlikely that any
supplemental or amended report can be completed by January 3*, 2005.* If Mr. J
Homberger supplements or amends his report, defendant reserves the right to have its S
l i .
` I Plail stiff does not concede that a supplemental or amended report would be required in order 0
for Mr. H ·ml:¤=erger to testify regarding ther MLCC guidelines. Nonetheless, to the extent these J
g documents woluld materially change plaintifi"s <:xpert’s testimony or conclusions, plaintiff does not p
' object to p odncing a supplemental report, provided that her expert is given the time to do so. l
i l

= l
l llzll iz léillli lliii l i
ir ii" ' ```A'‘` ` U ` ```` czebrsélos-cv-o·1or1ecwws Di5ti`UriTe`nt`1'13‘ ‘ l Filed O1/O3/2005 · Page·l3 o·f · · · · q· ·
‘ I .
I l
expert supplement or amend his report t0 address the issues of Mr. Homberger’s i
F supplement or amendment.
l ` l
d. E Alt a recent deposition of Kevin Huben, a non—party witness, MLCC”s counsel asserted
g au attomey-client privilege objcection to various questions. Plaint lff’ as counsel disputed
§ the validity of that objection and MLCC’s counsel, without waiving any other
objections, withdrew the attorney-client objection on December 3 E), 2004. Plaintiff will l
need additional time to resume land complete Mr. Huben’s depos:-itidn.
Accirrdigngly, the parties respectfully request that the Court extend the discovery cut—off date
to Februarjgir 7.. 2005, as well as correspondirgrg pre-trial dates as set forth below pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. i}6(l·) and Local Civil Rule 9(b).
Afteir reviewing the Joint Motion, and finding good cause, the Court hcurelpy ORDERS:
(i) Tiirat the Discovery Cut—Off is extended from January 7, 2005 to aF`eli>ruary 7, 2005;
(ii) Tnat the Joint Trial Memoranda will be tiled by March 25, 2005:
(iii) Tliat the case will be placed on the Trial Ready List for May 200 5. i
(iv) Tiiat any dispositive motion shall be tiled by March 25, 2004.
(v) Except as specifically modifiedlin this order, the Superseding Scueriluling Order dated
l November 16, 2004 will in all other respects remain in effect.
i I `-_-T')
J i I-lon. Dorma F. Martinez j
i United States Magistrate Judge
l I
I
I f
i E
E . 3 i
l l
i I
1 . l
i

( J.. . _ ;_ _, . . 1 1
1;.11 l...la||Il.l lll; 1 l 1
ir ii`]: rl ““``'``` ````" " ```` `Cléaégifiilbfi-cv-O`1016¥WWE " D`i$ci‘um“e‘nt‘1'13‘ ‘ A Filed O1/O3/20051 · Page 4 of 4·-· · · · ·i · ·l· ·
` 7 1
PAUL, 1H/XSTINGS, JANOFSKY & BEGOS & HORGAN, LLP A
WALKEQ, LLP (
{ ( \/` /\
Byf B3/¤ ;;:·;i.r l
Doulglas C. Conroy (ct11555) Patrick , Begos (cat 19090) 1
Thoilnam P. Friedman (ct24947) Christopher G. Brown (ct18216) 1
Attorneys for-Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff
1055 Wasiiinigton Boulevard 327 Riverside Avenue
Stamford, .-CT 06901-2217 Westport, CT 06880
(203) 961j74|i)0 (203) 226-9990
(203) 359 3031 (fax) (203) 222-4833 (fax)
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 1
t _|on:[email protected] cgb@begosh< l·l'g£lll'1.CO[`I‘1
. n “
? .| 1

I -
|
m Y
1 i_ 4