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

Mem?. ZUUA 1:58PM MARNNLUGASCHIOFFI NMU52 P. 18
'Case 3:03-cv-00369-DJS Document 34-4 Filed O3/23/2004 Page1 0f2
EXHIBIT C

iiat.22. 2004 1:58Pii ii»iRiiNlUCiiSC|iiOFFi N0.2U52 P. 19
Case 3:03-cv-00369-DJS Document 34-4 Filed O3/23/2004 Page 2 of 2
E is- s T El N é"§`é`.S?.é`[`"`s.mEi£E`E
A‘t”r¤Rr~1aY5 AT r.Aw
um; LANDMARK enuann
S LI ITE 'I EDD
ETAMFD HD, DT DEED l ·2§E'l
2¤s.aac.a·:~·s·7
mx: ana.ae.=t.eee1
MARY A. GAMEAHDELLA, EQQ. EEELANMDDM
TEI-2 303 335 .7425
FAX! 2D!3.Ei2·¢l..929l
NIGAMBAQDCQDEBGLAW. IEDM
March 19, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE ANI) REGULAR MAIL
Scott Lucas, Esq.
Martin Lucas 8; Chiofti LLP
177 Broad Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Re; Lynn B. Kanios v. UST, Inc. and Mark Uliasz
Discovery Requests dated March 16fReceived March 19
Dear Scott:
Enclosed with the hard copy of this letter we are returning the Plaintiffs Second
Request for Production of Documents, as well as Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories. The
Federal Rules require that all written discovery requests be served so that the deadline for
responding to such rguests falls within the discovery deadline.
The deadline for completion of discovery was extended to April 5 when the Court
permitted the Amended Complaint. Obviously, then, these discovery requests have not been
timely served. Given the fact the Court set this new deadline some time ago, if Plaintiff moves
for another extension of that discovery deadline, the Defendants will take the position that
Plaintiff could have served these requests in a more timely manner. Indeed, Defenda.nts’ Answer
to the Amended Complaint was served February 17, and these requests could have followed
immediately thereafter.
Sincerely,
Cr bardella
MAG:_gmd
Enclosures
ATLANTA · EHZIETEIN · DHIEAEEI · DALLAS · HDUETDN · i.i:|s ANEELE5
NEWARK · NEW YORK; • SAN PF·tAr~ii’::i5|:¤ · 5·r.¤.r»·1Fi:m¤ » wAsi-i|:»ii3T¤N, |3,¤,
EPETEIN BEDKER BREEEN WICKLIFF Si HALL, F'.D. th-] TEXAS DML?