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

f §ase :03-cv-00386-AWT Document 80 Filed 02/28/200; Page 1 of 1
2 mg il‘ G8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT]? A 1 1° ’
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I ’
EUNICE SMITH : L ACTION NO.
4 Plaintw , : ` 3 V00386(AWT) _,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ._ C
. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL . : ‘
Defendant. : January 17, 2006
( : `
MOTION TO EXTEND PLAINTlFF’S TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S
” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
*1
I Pursuant to Local Rule of Civ. P. the plaintiff seeks leave of the Court to extend _
, _ the time within which to respond to defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
currently due January 20th 2006 to February 20th 2006. Plaintiff has good cause for
requesting this second extension. Specificallythe press of legal business, related to
_ Appellate, Court briefs and hearings, administrative hearings and responses to several
Le 2 .
Swiirriaryéludgment Motions all of ’which come due around the same time as the Smith
(K i» resppcnse. Judgment responses are due on: Edwards v. Metro North Railroad
‘ <·~¤ f;{Y§`j“lZ _
‘“ @.jH’resilus Prophete v. Ed Mitchell, Assegai v. Town of Bloomfield, et al., Richardson
.,.»., - M - ~
v. Stéiie of Connecticut, et al., Bogle-Assegai v. State of Connecticut, et al., Hassell v.
_ . _ Town of Manchester, King v. State of Connecticut, Barlow v. City of Hartford.
». V mm;. 9,-:9 1'_y_;~_¢» J
Extension GRANTED, over objection, to and kwbmig
. . F€"·r~rr2¢ sage **..*¤=¤¤¤¤¤¢¤¢
J Atvsm w..THoMi5§oN, u.$Tb..1. 4* J L ’ if 2
— I HARTFORD. CT _,,_Q_¤ I2.? {Wi! ~ » ,