Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02328-RPM-CBS

Document 63

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 03 CV 2328 (RPM) GREG JOSEPH GONZALES, by and through his next friend, JUNE BRAVO Plaintiffs, v.

OFFICER BRETT C. TITUS, in his official and personal capacity, and CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendants.

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND

Plaintiff Greg Gonzales, by and through counsel Brian DeBauche, Esq., hereby submits the following Motion for Enlargement of Time for written discovery deadlines. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, Defendant states as follows: 1. Both the City, and the individual officer, filed motions for summary judgment in this

matter, on November 4, 2005. 2. Pursuant to the current local rules on response time for ordinary pleadings the

responses on both motions would be due on November 24, 2005 or just before the Thanksgiving holiday. D.C.COLO.LcivR 7.1(C). The motions under F.R.C.P. 56 are not expressly covered by this rule, however. 3. Counsel is requesting an additional eleven days' time to provide responses to both

motions, or up to and including the date of December 5, 2005. Counsel is not able to completely draft responses to both motions for summary judgment, and does not have the resources that the

Case 1:03-cv-02328-RPM-CBS

Document 63

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 2 of 3

defendants possess to generate responses to extensive motions in such a short time frame. Counsel is also mindful of the holiday and the difficulty of setting aside plans for Thanksgiving. Additionally the responses themselves must match the material contained in defense briefs that are seventeen and twenty fives pages in length respectively, excluding exhibits; and this firm is interviewing prospective law clerks to assist in research and drafting these types of responses, but a candidate is not yet chosen. 4. Since trial has not been set in this matter, none of the parties are prejudiced or

burdened by the relief sought herein. However, this case is set for a trial management conference on December 20, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. Further, the Plaintiff can certify that no prior extensions were requested regarding these responses. 5. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1, undersigned counsel certifies that he conferred

with defense counsel for Officer Titus and the City and County of Denver and that counsel for each defendant indicated no objection to the relief requested. 6. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1, undersigned counsel certifies that a copy of this

motion has been served upon the client and all counsel of record. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of the time to respond to the Motions for Summary Judgment, up to and including December 5, 2005. Respectfully Submitted, Brian DeBauche & Associates, L.L.C.

By: ______________________________ Brian DeBauche, Esq. Registration No. 28593 401 Kalamath St. Denver, CO 80204 2

Case 1:03-cv-02328-RPM-CBS

Document 63

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 3 of 3

(303) 571-5023 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 21, 2005 a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME was placed in the U.S. Mail, first class postage paid, and addressed to: Thomas Rice, Esq. Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C. P.O. Box 22833 Denver CO 80222-0833 David Bruno, Esq. Bruno, Bruno & Colin, P.C. 1560 Broadway, Ste. 1099 Denver, CO 80202-5143 Thomas Bigler, Esq. Assistant City Attorneys Civil Litigation Practice Group 201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept. 1108 Denver, CO 80202

__________________________________

00173767

3