Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 137-2

Filed 10/27/2005

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DONALD WAINRIGHT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. OSM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-02158 (WWE)

OCTOBER 27, 2005

MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS ISRAEL H. POLANSKY AND ANNE POLANSKY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONS PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7(c) AND LOCAL RULE 7(b)3 WITH RESPECT TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT G A T N P A N IF ' T O F RE T N I NO T ME R N I G L I T F S MO I N O X E SO F I These defendants, Anne Polansky and Israel H. Polansky (who is 95 years old) have filed motions for summary judgment the response to which was due on or before September 29, 2005. Plaintiffs have now moved to file out of time a motion for enlargement and for an extension of time. T iibsd n ln f 'one s lm t tp i iscuslnde et f l t h s ae o p i iscusl c i h "ln f ' onei vr n y ae o s a tf ' a a a tf a t l id properly file a motion for extension on September 29, 2005 despite the attempted filing with a d k n hta e a b At ny cal u i w o ok wt At ny oe E A nl s i o t sm dy y t re Mi eC l n h w rs i t re R br . ro ' s a o h k, h o t d of e MrC l n a ntid n per c i t s aead s efr bl t rigo fc. . u ihs o fe a apa nenh m trn a stot e w h es od i " k l a i t h o e reason to conclude that no such attempt was ever made. Further, assertion, with nothing more does not meet the standard o ecsb ng cstot i p i ism m r dm i spot s f xual el tefr n ln f ' e oa u n upr e e h a tf n of their motion. In addition, the motion for extension of time itself fails to comply with Local R l o Cv Poeue () w i " qi s prcl i dso i t th t e i it n u f i l rcdr 7b2 h h r u e a a i a z hwn h t i l ti e i c e r tu r e g a e m m ao

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 137-2

Filed 10/27/2005

Page 2 of 5

i qet n a ntesnb b m t ep eh d i ne fh pre sei t et s n n uso cn o r oal e edsi t ig c o t a i ek g h x ni . i a y t e le e ts n e e o" Isol b nt t t e nat pni m t n fru m r j g etrv t l t sm thu e o dh df dn ' ed g o oso sm a u m na iu l h a e d e a e s n i y d e r ay e as those on March 31, 2004. Plaintiffs have had a year and a half to prepare their responses. B yn At nyA nl s s ro o " eae p dfi wt ad k n f t a eod t re ro ' as t n f t tm t in i o d ei h t e lg h i , o a s r s" c e g e w i w u spot ln f ' o o fr e i i t feot fi eam t nfr i n h h ol uprp i is m t n o pr s o o i u o t v c d a tf i m sn l m oo o i enlargement of time or the motion for enlargement of time itself. T if ut g fh odro t s oricniet i p i iscusl bhv r h l n n o t re fh C uts os t wt ln f ' one ' eai sa i e s i s n h a tf s o through out this case. The Rule 26 Scheduling Order entered in this matter on March 31, 2003 called for plaintiffs to have completed their discovery by the end of 2003. A month and a half after that deadline they moved for an extension of time to depose the defendants. On March 31, 2004, these defendants filed motions for summary judgment which were sbt tl t sm a t s pni bfr t cut o .Pa tf r pne w r de t us n ay h a e sh e ed g e e h ornw ln f 'e oss e u a a il e o n o e i is s e the end of April 2004. On April 23, 2004, they moved for an extension of time to respond. That motion was granted on April 27, 2004 extending the time for forty-five (45) days. On July 30, 2004, several weeks past the end of the granted extension, plaintiffs filed ­but did not serve on the defendants ­another motion for extension which was granted until September 7, 2004. September 7 came and went, and on October 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed a third motion for enlargement of time. Moe eet , ln f i oe t dal e fh cut odr e fr a D cm n r r n y p i isg r h ed n o t ors re stot t ou et c l a tf n d e i e ' h #101 giving plaintiffs ten (10) days to respond to certain discovery to be submitted by the defendants. The defendants sb ie t id cvr t t C ut n ue 2 20.Pa tf um td h r i oe o h oro Jn 2, 05 ln f ' t e s y e i is

2

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 137-2

Filed 10/27/2005

Page 3 of 5

r pne w r t sdeb Jl 5 T ep i isi oe t C ut odr na l s to e oss e h u y u . h ln f g r h ors re i te tw s e u y a tf n d e ' a r pc .Fr, ln f 'epne a t "e upr db seic e r c t t dcm n e et itp i is r os w so b spot y pc ir e neo h ou et s s s a tf s e f fe e s a ed t ndoe" D c#9a 3.Pa tf r pne ae osc r e ne E e m r l ay u e vr [ o. 9 t ] ln f 'e os m d n uh e r c. vn oe r r . i is s fe arpst t m tr e r t C ut o i t C ut osrao i fo o 2o t poo o h ae bf e h or nw s h ors be t n n ot t e t o e e ' vi n e fh e Follow-u R l g n ln f ' t no o plD c#0 a2]; p u n o Pa tf Mo o t C m e[ o.19 t i i is i Pa tf sb i i w sdt Jl 7 20; o ee t m t nw snt ln f ' um s o a a d u , 05 hw vr h o o a o i is sn e y , e i docketed until July 28, 2005. [Doc. #100]. Defendants stated they did not receive anything from plaintiffs within the ten (1) period ordered by the Court. They cn n t thy ee e p i is r pne nA gs2 20 b v t o a ot d h t r i d ln f 'e os o uut , 05 y iu f n e a e cv a tf s re CM-ECF e-m i f m t C ut T eC ut C a r h or h ors M-ECF records indicate that l o e . ' p i is " sos"w s ee e f m R brE A nl I o Jl 2, 05 ln f ' r pne a r i d r a tf e c v o oe . ro I n u 8 20 t d I y and entered on August 1, 2005 at 12:07 PM. Notice was electronically mailed to all counsel of record on that date. Plaintiffs have not provided any contrary evidence to support their contention that their response was received or docketed at an earlier time. I t m trbfr t C ut o , ln f 'r pne t df dn 'm t n fr n h ae e e h or nw p i is e oss o e nat o os o e t o e a tf s e s i summary judgment were due by September 29, 2005 [see Docs. #126 and #127]. On October 24, 20,hs df dn r e e p i is m t n fr e i i t feadfr x ni o 05 t e e nat e i d ln f ' o os o pr s o o i n o et s n f e e s cv a tf i m sn l e o time dated October 20, 2005. Significantly, counsel for these defendants has never received a cp o t Sp m e 2 m t nfrel gm n o t ew i p i is cusl lm oy f h et br 9 o o o n re et f i e e i a m h h ln f ' one c i s c a tf a Attorney Michael Culkin attempted to file with a disk. There is no more reason to believe that the September 29 motion existed or was subjected to an attempted filing any more than there was t blv p i isc i s f Jl 7 epne h h a i f tee e b t C ut n u o eee ln f ' lm o a u r os w i w sn a r i d yh oro Jl i a tf a y s c c cv e y 2. H dsc am t neie, e nat cusl would have received a copy pursuant to 8 a uh o o x t df dn ' one i sd e s Fed.R.Civ. 5(a) and Local Rule 5.

3

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 137-2

Filed 10/27/2005

Page 4 of 5

N i e p i ism t n o pr i i t fe o p i ism t n o el gm n o ehr ln f ' o o fr e s o o i nr ln f ' o o fr n re et f t a tf i m sn l a tf i a time should be granted. The motion for permission to file falls far short of the standards cnee b p i is i t i m m r dm i spoto t tm t n T em t n fr ocdd y ln f ' n h r e oa u n upr f h a tf e n a o o. h o o o i i el gm n o t ef l t cm l wt L cl u 7b2w i r u e " prcl i d n re et f i as o o p i oa R l () h h e i s a a i a z a m i y h e c qr tu r e showing that the time limitation in question cannot be reasonably met in spite of the diligence of t pre sei t et s n T ee e nat m t n o sm a j g et a be, h a i ek gh x ni . hs df dn ' o o fru m r u m n hs eni e ts n e e o" e s i y d n essence, pending since March 31, 2004 and there has been no particularized showing why a response would not have been made as ordered. DEFENDANTS ISRAEL H. POLANSKY and ANNE POLANSKY

/s/________________________________ J. Michael Sulzbach Fed Bar #ct00206 385 Orange Street New Haven CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 781-0880 Fax: (203) 781-0861 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for Defendants Israel H. Polansky and Anne Polansky

4

Case 3:01-cv-02158-WWE

Document 137-2

Filed 10/27/2005

Page 5 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DONALD WAINRIGHT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. OSM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-02158 (WWE)

OCTOBER 27, 2005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 27, 2005, a copy of foregoing Memorandum of Defendants Israel H. Polansky and Anne Polansky in Support of Their Motions Pursuant to Local R l7c adL cl u 7b3Wi R setot D c i o T iC ut r t g ln f ' u ( n oa R l () t epc t h eio f h orG a i Pa tf e ) e h e sn s nn i is Motion for Extension of Time was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of t cut e c oi fi ss m o b m it ayn ual t acp e c oi fi a h ors l t n in yt r y a o noe nb o cet l t n in s e ' e r c lg e l e e r c lg indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filin t og t cut g h uh h ors r e ' CM/ECF System. The parties served are as follows: Counsel for plaintiffs Donald Wainright and Deborah Russo-Williams Robert E. Arnold III, Esquire 205 Church Street, New Haven CT 06066 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for defendants Robert E. Polansky and OSM Communications, Inc. Michael P. Goldsmith, Esquire 38 W. 21st St., 5th floor, New York NY 10010-6977 E-mail: [email protected]

/s/______________________________ J. Michael Sulzbach Fed Bar #ct00206 385 Orange Street New Haven CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 781-0880 Fax: (203) 781-0861 E-mail: [email protected]

5