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

J
. ¤. , Case 3:03-cv-01014-.éB% Document 151 Filed 12/23/2%5 Page 1 of 3 E
S:. FCE] ~4*J¤~% i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT gg?) tg “%% Q
DISTRICT or- CONNECTICUT a;;2g€§;3r rg; ·j;;L“il l
M _11»1. é
-·· —·· ·-· ··-· ·—· -·· ·- ---—--------------- —· -—- ·-- -· X (ig, jj VJ X;/ii} *3
H. JONATHAN FRANK : Docket No. 3:O3Cv7QT‘.’O’—14(`@BA) >
and FRANK FAMILY 1996 TRUST, : {·;; --FT gz Q
= <">€i;2. LL 1
Plaintiffs, : Wig II
ARTHUR LOVETERE, et al., :
. 1
‘ l
Defendants. : December 22, 2005
·····—·········—···~ ·· ·~··~···· X
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ON CONSENT _
Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Rule 7(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, _
defendants Arthur LoVetere, Louis Baccei, Worth Loomis, Theodore
Patlovich, Stephen Raffay, Peter Eio, and William Rowland hereby
move for extensions of time within which to respond and/or object i
to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests served on counsel for the i
defendants on November 29, 2005. The responses are currently due 5
on or before December 28, 2005. This is the defendants' first I
I
1
request for an extension of time to respond to these discovery
requests. The defendants request extensions of this deadline to
and including the following dates: `
Theodore Patlovich January 13, 2006
Louis J. Baccei January 13, 2006
Steven J. Raffay January 20, 2006
Peter Eio January 27, 2006 i
Worth Loomis January 27, 2006 i
Arthur LoVetere January 27, 2006
William Rowland January 27, 2006
To -2 rrrr mr 2 2
—» I 2 T -2-. ..2r 2 r- 2 .


· ’ Case 3:03-cv-01014-gB/51 Document 151 Filed 12/23/,2035 Page 2 of 3 1
. .- K
The defendants require additional time to respond to these _
discovery requests because: (1) four of the seven defendants
reside out of state, making the preparation of their responses
especially time-consuming; (2) one of the defendants, William 1
Rowland, is in poor health and is legally blind, requiring 1
special accommodations for preparation of his responses; and (3)
the holiday vacation schedules of the defendants, counsel, and
staff have made the gathering and processing of the requested
i
information logistically difficult. Undersigned counsel notes Q
i
that the plaintiffs have already received substantial discovery
from these defendants, and that the extensions requested will l
ensure that the plaintiffs receive each defendant’s responses at
least ten days before that defendant's scheduled deposition.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Jeffrey Simes, has indicated i
that he consents to this request. ?
THE DEFENDANTS i
ARTHUR LOVETERE, LOUIS J. BACCEI, (
WORTH LOOMIS, THEODORE PATLOVICH, .
STEPHEN J. RAFFAY, PETER EEO and ?
WILLIAM ROWLAND ]
0 (
By: .L
7 -s T. Cowdery (ct05103)
ih A. L. Merriam (ct25379) ;
Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy, L.L.C. E
( 750 Main Street `
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel: (860) 278-5555
Fax: (860) 249-0129
E-mail: [email protected] {
I
g
I
1
\_____________________”H_*_”"__"_”_H*mM*m___"mm_"m_________________“______________;

I
. , Case 3:03-cv-01014-.%.% D0cument151 Fi|ed12/23/2005 Page3of3
CERTIFICATION ,
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion for l
Extension of Time was sent on December 22, 2005, via facsimile
and via U.S. Mail, first—class, postage pre—paid to all counsel
of record as follows:
Jonathan B. Tropp, Esq. Jason J. Kuselias, Esq.
Terrence Gallagher, Esq. Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard, LLP Robinson & Cole, LLP
One Canterbury Green 280 Trumbull Street
Stamford, CT 06901 Hartford, CT 06l03—3597
Richard M. Strassberg, Esq. Edward F. Spinella, Esq.
Jeffrey Alan Simes, Esq. Todd S. Federico, Esq.
Goodwin Procter, LLP Reid and Riege, P.C.
599 Lexington Avenue One Financial Plaza
New York, NY 10022 Hartford, CT 06103 _
James T. Shearin, Esq. i
Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
1
L F
ah A. L. Merriam
!
1
1