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

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH

Document 46

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SUSAN E. WOOD, Plaintiff, v. SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORPORATION, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-CV-986 (JCH)

May 28, 2004

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), Plaintiff Susan E. Wood ("Plaintiff") hereby moves for an extension of time, up to and including June 28, 2004, within which to file a response to Defendant Sempra Energy Trading Corporation's ("Defendant") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment On Plaintiff's Complaint, and Memorandum of Law In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On Plaintiff's Complaint, both dated May 14, 2004 (collectively "Partial Summary Judgment Motion"). Good cause exists to grant this extension, as lead counsel for Plaintiff is on trial in a medical malpractice action in Oklahoma from June 5th through June 12th. Further, due to the size and scope of Defendant's Partial Summary Judgment Motion - Defendant is moving for summary judgment on fourteen (14) of the fifteen (15) counts contained in the Complaint Plaintiff will need to dedicate considerable time and resources in preparing a complete and proper response thereto. More particularly, the Partial Summary Judgment Motion is forty-eight

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH

Document 46

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 2 of 3

(48) pages in length and is accompanied by a plethora of exhibits (such exhibits consist of fortyone (41) tabs, which are roughly two inches thick). In fact, Defendant had to seek the Court's permission to exceed the page limit with respect to its Partial Summary Judgment Motion. Further, and significantly, the Court will note that Defendant, a publicly-held corporation with vast resources, represented by a national law firm, itself moved for an extension of time of the dispositive motion filing deadline in order to timely file the Partial Summary Judgment Motion. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts that she should be afforded a fair opportunity to file a response to same. The undersigned counsel for Plaintiff contacted counsel for Defendant, Peter Schultz, regarding Defendant's position with respect to this motion, and Defendant does not consent to Plaintiff's requested extension being granted. This is Plaintiff's first request to extend the time within which to respond to the Partial Summary Judgment Motion.

Dated: May 28, 2004

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey M. McCormick

Digitally signed by Jeffrey M. McCormick DN: CN = Jeffrey M. McCormick, C = US, O = O'Rourke Date: 2004.05.28 13:03:10 -04'00'

By:_________________________________ Brendan J. O'Rourke (ct00522) Jeffrey M. McCormick (ct21185) O'ROURKE & ASSOCIATES LLC 27 Pine Street New Canaan, CT 06840 Telephone: (203) 966-6664 Facsimile: (203) 966-5710 [email protected]

-2-

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH

Document 46

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, a member of the bar of this Court, hereby certifies that on this 28th day of May, 2004, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following counsel of record via United States Postal Service:

Mary C. Dollarhide (ct12251) Peter M. Schultz (ct19425) Neil B. Stekloff (ct19778) PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 1055 Washington Blvd. Stamford, CT 06901-2217 Telephone: (203) 961-7400 Facsimile: (203) 359-3031 Email: [email protected]

Ann Brickley

_______________________________ Ann Brickley

Digitally signed by Ann Brickley DN: CN = Ann Brickley, C = US, O = O'Rourke Date: 2004.05.28 13:03:32 04'00'

-3-