Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 59

Filed 06/02/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PETER D. MAINS and LORI M. MAINS Plaintiffs, v. SEA RAY BOATS, INC. Defendant. : CASE NO. 301 CV 2402 (AWT) : : : : : : : : JUNE 2, 2006

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE JOINT TRIAL MEMORANDUM Defendant Sea Ray Division of Brunswick Corporation (improperly designated in the Complaint as "Sea-Ray Boats, Inc.") ("Sea Ray") hereby objects to Plaintiffs' second Motion for Extension of Time in which to file the parties' Joint Trial Memorandum. Four months ago, on February 1, 2006, the Court ordered sua sponte that the Joint Trial Memorandum be filed by April 3, 2006. On March 20, two weeks before the Trial Memorandum was due, Plaintiffs requested referral to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference and simultaneously filed a motion "request[ing] that the date for filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum be extended to a date thirty days following the conclusion of the Settlement Conference." Pls.' Mot. for Extension of Time, Mar. 20, 2006, at 1-2. Sea Ray did not object to Plaintiffs' Motion, and that motion was granted. The deadline for the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum was set at June 5, 2006, thirty-one days following the settlement conference. Although Plaintiffs have had four months in which to prepare their sections of the Joint Trial Memorandum, they now assert that the deadline requested in their previous motion does not

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 59

Filed 06/02/2006

Page 2 of 3

permit them sufficient time to prepare those materials. Sea Ray submits that a further extension of time is not warranted. Neither of plaintiffs' two arguments in favor of a further extension is persuasive. First, the fact that an additional settlement conference has been ordered does not justify a further delay. The Court has permitted Plaintiffs to postpone the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum following a settlement conference once before, yet they have evidently failed to prepare the required materials. Second, Plaintiffs assert that they require additional time to prepare their sections of the Joint Trial Memorandum because they intend to file a Motion to Compel further responses to their discovery requests. This Court should not grant an extension to a deadline based on a motion that Plaintiffs have not even filed. Even if Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel had merit, which Sea Ray vigorously disputes, it would not require further delay in the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum. Moreover, any Motion to Compel should have been filed before discovery closed more than two years ago. (Order, Jan. 14, 2004 (discovery to be completed by May 30, 2004).) Although Plaintiffs claim that the issues to be addressed in their Motion to Compel "have only recently arisen as a result of knowledge coming to the attention of the Plaintiffs and their counsel," Plaintiffs have been making this same claim since at least April 21 of this year. (Affidavit of Daniel J. Foster, attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Foster Aff.") ¶ 4-5.) Since that time, Sea Ray has steadfastly denied that its discovery responses were incomplete. (Id ¶ 6.) In fact, as Sea Ray will illustrate in response to any Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs' discovery responses indicate that they have been aware of those issues at least since 2002. Accordingly, there is no justification for Plaintiffs decision not to file that Motion to Compel until the eve of the deadline for the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum. To the

-2-

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 59

Filed 06/02/2006

Page 3 of 3

contrary, the timing of that Motion suggests that it is a tactical maneuver intended to create further delay. For the foregoing reasons, Sea Ray respectfully requests that the Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Extension of Time be denied. Respectfully submitted, DEFENDANT, SEA RAY BOATS, INC.

/s/ Daniel J. Foster James H. Rotondo (ct 05173) Daniel J. Foster (ct 24975) Day, Berry & Howard LLP CityPlace I Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 Phone: (860) 275 -0100 Fax: (860) 275-0343 Its Attorney

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 2, 2006 a copy of foregoing Objection to Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Trial Memorandum 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 the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System. /s/ Daniel J. Foster Daniel J. Foster (ct24975) [email protected] Day, Berry & Howard LLP CityPlace I Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 (860) 275-0100 (860) 275-0343 (fax)

-3-