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

I `
I ' ,
{ { Case 3:03-cv—OO98E&J§)H Document 29 Filed O1/26/200 e"
I . ’ · '
I Q
I I
{ • I UNl;F§1[Il;§g]aTES DISTRICT comm
{ OF CONNECTICUTIIIII IIII 2U A In uu
I f" *1
{ ) Us plgligiijl
_ {_ i.W.;,,,,,:,,-. ;,-·,a~
SUSAN E. WOOD, ) CIVIL ACTIONQQOI "° “‘ " I I
I ) 3:03—CV»986 UGH) 6 I
| Plaintiff; ) ,
{R I > >
I 1 )
{ _% I sEMPRA ENERGY TRADING ) January 16, 2004 I
{ { CORPORATION, y {
I D I
{ é 0-\ Defendant. )
, §
’ )
I I as
\§II \ s
{ Q { I x DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER
- .II ,
{ g Defendant, Sempra Energy Trading Corp. ("Sempra”), respectfully moves the Court to
{ I rnodify the existing scheduling order in this case, as follows: {
III ‘
E E Event Deadline {
I ` Discovery closes March I9, 2004 I
‘ °° I ..
Q \ U {M iyizlgispositive Motions due May 7, 2004
I Q- {I Trial Memorandum june 18, 2004, or 60 days after the {
§ ..0 g aq court’s rulings on dispositive motions,
{ Zi. {I 5; whichever date is later
KI I II III {QI
- ag ’··;‘%eady for Trial August 16, 2004, or 90 days after the
Q I E4 court’s rulings on dispositive motions,
L é q~\ { whichever date is later E
§ Q I
T} I
i .\ { There is good cause to grant this motion, for the reasons articulated in the attached
{ Q Affidavit of Peter M. Schultz, Esq. By way of e-mail message dated january 15, 2004, Plaintiffs {
Q { { counsel indicated his objection to this motion.
I
“ I
g ` I ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED Q
•§{ {
:;-2:--T. T;?_;?__?_i_TT__;-_:_`?f-"_`}—"—""` I
E? ?___?_r_h:a_:iL’_:`:___`-a-`i"_` I