Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 134 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SUSAN E. WOOD CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:03 CV 986(JCH)
Plaintiff
‘ against · August 16, 2005
SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP.
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
TRIAL SCHEDULE
Defendant Sempra Energy Trading Corp. ("Sempra") respectfully submits this
Opposition to Plaintiff s request to amend the trial schedule. S; Notice to Counsel dated
August 2, 2005 setting October 24, 2005 as date for trial to recommence.
I. BACKGROUND
On the afternoon of July 27th, the Court directed the parties to confer to propose a
date to recommence trial that comported with the Court’s availability. Afterward Attomeys
O’Rourke, Murray, McCormick, Dollarhide, Goldstein and Bertrand conferred with the Court’s
Clerk and agreed that October 24th was the first available date. On August 2, 2005, the Court
issued a notice setting October 24, 2005 as the date for trial to recommence. Two weeks after
the parties initially conferred and agreed on a date to recommence trial, Plaintiff filed this
Motion for Order to Convene Scheduling Conference.

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 134 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 2 of 4
II. ARGUMENT
In addition to other conflicts, lead counsel for Sempra is scheduled to begin a trial
on September 9, 2005, in the matter Wheeler v. United Parcel Service, GIC813450 in San Diego
Superior Court. This trial is expected to last five weeks and has been assigned this trial date
since March 2005.
More than forty (40) witnesses are likely to testify in the @ matter. UPS has
identified thirty-five (35) witnesses on its witness list alone. Besides preparing for these
witnesses’ examinations and meeting with the witnesses who will testify on UPS’s behalf,
counsel will need to prepare and respond to numerous motions in limine, as well as draft other
pretrial pleadings. In connection with this trial, lead counsel for Sempra also needs to appear at a
Trial Readiness conference on September 2, 2005. Further, lead counsel for Sempra is scheduled
to be on a long-planned family vacation from August 19 to August 28th, the last day before
school reconvenes for her children. Unquestionably, rescheduling trial for a date prior to
September 9th would adversely affect lead counsel’s ability to provide both Sempra and UPS
with the representation to which they are entitled.
Rescheduling trial to begin on a date before October 24th would impose an undue
hardship on Sempra, its attorneys, and Sempra’s witnesses for other reasons. After confirming
trial would recommence on October 24th, Sempra’s counsel notified Sempra of the re—scheduled
date, advised Sempra’s employees and third-party witnesses that they would not need to appear
until October 24th, and scheduled other work and personal matters for dates before October 24th.
Numerous individuals — parties, witnesses and nonparties alike — would be adversely affected if
trial is rescheduled for an earlier date.
-2- ·

Case 3:03-cv-00936--ICH Document 134 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 3 of 4
Finally, contrary to Plaintiffs suggestion that this case can be completed in less
than a day, Sempra expects it will call at least seven witnesses in its defense and rebuttal case,
including Christine Cantor, Elizabeth Dwyer, Jackie Mitchell, Alberto Vogel, Brian Rickers, and
Joseph Howley. Also, Plaintiffs signaled on July 27th that he may need time to present a
rebuttal case. For these reasons, the parties jointly requested on July 27th that October 24 and
25th be reserved to ensure the parties had enough time to present their case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Sempra requests that the trial date previously agreed to
and noticed by the Court g be rescheduled.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
M C. Dollarhide (ctl225l)
Raymond W. Bertrand (ct22968)
PAUL, HASTINGS, J AN OFSKY & WALKER
LLP
1055 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901-2217
Telephone: (203) 961-7400
Facsimile: (203) 359-3031
Email [email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant
Sempra Energy Trading Corp.
-3- I

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 134 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff" s Motion to Amend Trial
Schedule was sent on this 16th day of August, 2005, via regular U.S. mail and facsimile to:
Brendan J. O’Rourke, Esq.
O’R0urke & Associates, LLP
27 Pine Street
New Canaan, CT 06840
1 4/W
Ra ond W. Bertrand
t sm/soisssi
-4- .