Free Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00010-JJF Document 22 Filed O9/16/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BRIAN MILLER; HECTOR CALDERON; :
CHARLES FOLWELL; ROLLAND GREEN; :
DAWN M. HAUCK; KEVIN KEIR; :
ASHBY LINCOLN; KAREN MASINO; :
ROBERT W. PETERSON; SUSAN M. POKOISKI; :
DAN P. ROLLINS; and WILLIAM SPERATI, : C.A. N0. 05-010-JJ F
Plaintiffs, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v. :
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, :
a Delaware Corporation, :
Defendant. :
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE FOR
COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully submit
pursuant to Local Rule 16.5, their Motion for Extension of the Deadline for Completion
of Discovery, and in support thereof state as follows:
1. On May 31, 2005 this Court released the Pretrial Scheduling Order in this
matter.
2. As part of that Scheduling Order, il 4(a) holds:
Exchange and completion of interrogatories, identification
of all fact witnesses and document production shall be
commenced so as to be completed by October 14, 2005.
3. According to this Paragraph, the discovery mentioned in this paragraph
should have been served by September 14, 2005.
4. In recent weeks, Plaintiffs’ counsel has handled, and continues to handle a
very heavy caseload. Due to this, P1aintiffs’ counsel was simply unable to complete and

Case 1:05-cv-00010-JJF Document 22 Filed O9/16/2005 Page 2 of 3
serve Plaintiffs’ discovery upon Defendant by September i4, 2005. Upon realization of
this, at approximately 7:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, Plaintiffs counsel
placed a call to defense counsel and left a message requesting an extension of seven (7)
days in which to serve their discovery. Plaintiffs counsel stated that it would, of course,
provide Defendant any extra time that they need to respond to that discovery.
5. At 3:00 p.m., after two more telephone messages were left for defense
counsel regarding the request, defense counsel finally returned the call and stated that it
would have to check with their client to determine if such an accommodation could be
provided. It was represented. that they hoped to provide an answer bythe end ofthe day.
6. There was no return call that day, or the next. Plaintiffs counsel called
again on Friday morning, September 16, 2005 requesting some form of answer — one way
or the other.
7. Later that day, defense counsel called and refused the req_uested
accommodation. Hence, Plaintiffs regret that th.ey are forced to tum to the Court and
utilize its resources to resolve this seemingly minor issue.
8. Plaintiffs’ request to extend the discovery deadline by seven (7) days is
not unreasonable. Moreover, Defendant will incur no prejudice if the Court graciously
g.rants this motion.

Case 1:05-cv-00010-JJF Document 22 Filed O9/16/2005 Page 3 of 3
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request a seven (7) day extension to the discovery
deadline in the Pretrial. Scheduling Order.
MARGOLlS?JELSTETN
{ I
.- [ ‘ _
Ei ', im, squire (1.11. #432.2)
5 9 V pin Avenue
,-·* gten, DE 19806
(302 777-4680
(302) 777-4680 FAX
[email protected]
Attomeyfor Plaii1r.@¢
Dated: September 16, 2005