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

Case 3:01-cv-02047-WWE

Document 61

Filed 05/06/2004

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT OAK RIVER COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL FERRERI, INVATECH, L.L.C., INVATECH ASSOCIATES & COMPANY, INC., IT INSURANCE PROFESSIONALS, and APPLE OIL, INC., Defendants : : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 3:01CV2047(GLG) : : : : : : : : : MAY 4, 2004

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING DEADLINES The plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for an extension of the scheduling deadlines previously agreed upon by the parties in the Report of Parties' Planned Meeting dated January 15, 2003. It is not possible for the parties to meet certain of the deadlines due to the long and protracted course of discovery in this case, nor is it likely that this matter will be ready for trial by June 30, 2004. Moreover, the parties recently received notice from the Court that the case has been referred for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel. On information ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED/ NO TESTIMONY REQUIRED

Case 3:01-cv-02047-WWE

Document 61

Filed 05/06/2004

Page 2 of 6

and belief, the settlement conference will likely take place sometime during the month of June 2004. It is likely that the parties' preparation for same will result in a further

need for the current deadlines to be extended. Accordingly, the plaintiff respectfully submits that it is necessary that the current deadlines be extended and moves this Court to allow the same. Plaintiff therefore proposes that the current deadlines be extended as follows: 1. 2. Completion of discovery: Readiness for trial: 8/30/04 10/15/04

Plaintiff's counsel has contacted defendants' counsel with regard to this motion and they have indicated that they have no objection to an extension of the current scheduling deadlines. They have, however, proposed different deadlines. Counsel for the Invatech defendants proposes the following: 1. 2. Completion of discovery: Readiness for trial: 10/15/04 11/15/04

Counsel for defendant Apple Oil proposes the following: 1. 2. Completion of discovery: Readiness for trial: 9/30/04 11/30/04

Plaintiff has no objection to the deadlines being extended further as proposed

2

Case 3:01-cv-02047-WWE

Document 61

Filed 05/06/2004

Page 3 of 6

by defendants' counsel, but leaves the determination of what deadlines will be chosen to the Court. Discovery: Currently, the deadline for discovery is (was) December 30, 2003. Four (4) months have passed since that date and discovery is still not complete. There have been numerous delays during discovery. Moreover, there are numerous issues

relative to discovery that will likely need to be decided by the Court. The Invatech defendants have objections outstanding as to the vast majority of the discovery requests served upon them. In addition, defendant Apple Oil's objections to plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production remain outstanding. Finally, counsel for defendant Apple Oil has indicated that he intends to file discovery on his client's behalf as to the other parties within the next couple of weeks. The parties are presently attempting to come to an agreement regarding the aforementioned discovery issues so that the Court's involvement will not be necessary. No depositions have been taken as of this date because the parties were waiting for written discovery to be completed first. Without complete responses from the defendants to its Interrogatories and Requests for Production, the plaintiff has not

3

Case 3:01-cv-02047-WWE

Document 61

Filed 05/06/2004

Page 4 of 6

been in a position to notice any depositions. Readiness for trial: Assuming discovery is completed in the next few months, i.e. by 8/30/04; the case should be ready for trial within forty-five (45) days thereafter. Of course, the Court may chose to extend the trial readiness deadline further, as proposed by defendants' counsel. Again, the plaintiff does not object to a further extension of the deadlines, but leaves this determination to the Court. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to extend the scheduling deadlines in this matter. THE PLAINTIFF, Oak River Company

BY__________________________ April Haskell (CT 04307) Montstream & May, L.L.P. 655 Winding Brook Drive P. O. Box 1087 Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087 (860) 659-1341 e-mail: [email protected]

4

Case 3:01-cv-02047-WWE

Document 61

Filed 05/06/2004

Page 5 of 6

ORDER The foregoing Motion having been heard, it is hereby ORDERED: GRANTED/DENIED. BY THE COURT,

Judge/Clerk

5

Case 3:01-cv-02047-WWE

Document 61

Filed 05/06/2004

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to all counsel/parties of record this 4th day of May, 2004, as follows: Christopher B. Weldon, Esq. Daren P. Renner, Esq. Lustig & Brown, L.L.P. 1150 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06905 James J. Nugent, Esq. Nugent & Bryant 236 Boston Post Road Orange, CT 06477 April Haskell Montstream & May, L.L.P.

6