Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—Og3§59—DJS Document 35 Filed O$6/2004 Paget of 3
N
iliill tiiil Eb A l0= Bb l
. .- . ,, (W ._3 !
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT if K Q E
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT A `
LYNN B. KANIOS, : Civil Action No. 3:03CV369 (DJS)
Plaintiff,
vs. I
’ !
UST, INC. and MARK ULIASZ,
Defendants. MARCH 25, 2004
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE
The Defendants, UST, Inc. and Mark Uliasz (collectively "Defendants") hereby i
respectfully object to the P1aintiff’s Motion to again Extend the Discovery Deadline, albeit
"solely" for the purpose of compelling Defendants to respond to Written discovery requests
untimely served.
In the Motion, Plaintiff represents that "Defendants have taken the position" the requests,
served on March 16, 2004, were untimely served. Defendants did not "take a position”; the
Scheduling Order in place provides that discovery must be completed by April 5. Discovery
requests served March 16 clearly cannot ensure completion of discovery by April 5, given the
entitlement to take up to 30 days to respond thereto pursuant to Rule 34.
In this case, Plaintiff has cited no reason for her failure to serve these requests in a timely p
manner. The affirmative defense which is the subject of the requests was served on her counsel
on February 17, 2004, approximately one month ago.




1 I
Case 3:03-cv—0g·369—DJS Document 35 Filed 0356/2004 Page 2 of 3
- » J Q
Defendants have been subjected t0 several lengthy extensions of discovery in this case I
for a variety of reasons, most of which were necessitated by Plaintiffs needs, but consented to
by Defendants. The Plaintiff served a late request to amend the complaint, triggering yet another i
extension by the Court to ensure fairness to Defendants in discovery as to that late amendment.
If Defendants are forced to respond to untimely requests now, what additional discovery will
Plaintiff then request? Simply stated, discovery has to end sometime in this case, and Plaintiff
should not be permitted to have "never—ending" discovery. At some point, the Federal Rules
should mean something.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendants respectfully request that this
Court deny the Plaintiff s Motion for an additional Extension of Discovery.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
By: . l
Mary . G arde a
Federal Bar No. ct 5386
One Landmark Square, Suite 1800 !
Stamford, CT 06901-2601
(203) 348-3737
!
— and —
Steven J. Younes, Esq. =
Federal Bar No. ctl2408
One Landmark Square, Suite 1800 _
Stamford, CT 06901-2681
(203) 348-3737
2
ST:28246vl

.
l
Case 3:03-cv—OO369—DJS Document 35 Filed 0356/2004 Page 3 of 3 l

l
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Objection was sent via l
facsimile and first class mail, postage prepaid, this 25th day of March, 2004 to counsel of record as y
follows:
Scott R. Lucas, Esq.
Martin, Lucas & Chioffi, LLP
177 Broad Street
Stamford, CT 06901
I
Mary A. GE baréella N
l
l
l
3
ST:2S246v1