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

Case 1 :04-cv-00414-SLR Document 78 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIE DAVIS, JR., NATHANIEL *
BRIDDELL, JOSEPH GARRISON, it
LARRY E. GIBBS, ROY H. WALTERS, *
and ALL SIMILARLY-SITUATED *
CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES *
OF MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., *
MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELMARVA *
INC., and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF "‘
DELAWARE, INC., *
»i<
Plaintiffs, °" Civil Action No. 04-414 e KAJ
:]:
v. °"
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., a Delaware *
Corporation, MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF *
DELMARVA, a Delaware Corporation,
and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF *
DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware *
Corporation, *
=¤<
Defendants. "‘
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO EXTEND TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respond to
Defendants’ Motion To Extend Time In Which To Respond To Plaintiffs’ Answering
Brief in Opposition to Defendants? Motion For Partial Summary Judgment opposing
same on the following basis:
l. While it is acknowledged and appreciated by PlaintilYfs’ counsel that
Defendants agreed to an extension until October 13, 2006 to tile Plaintiffs’ Answering
Brief Plaintiffs’ counsel, at no time, agreed to a three-week extension for Defendants’

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 78 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 2 of 3
filing of their Reply Brief`. The reason for P1aintiffs’ reluctance to allow such an
extension was solely motivated by the Court’s impending move from the United States
District Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs’ concern has been, all along, that
this matter be fully briefed so as to allow the Court an opportunity to consider and rule
upon Defendants’ Motion for a Partial Summary Judgment before departure to the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
2. It is well understood that if this motion is pending at the time of the
Court’s departure, it is likely that this motion may not be decided for at least eight to ten
months.
3. Contrary to defense counsel’s representation regarding the teleconference
between P1aintiffs’ counsel and attorneys Brewer and Scheinberg on October l2,
Plaintiffs’ counsel did not represent that there was a “need for additional time." Rather,
Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged that the brief was due on the following day, October l3,
and that it may be necessary to request an extension of two or three days in order to
complete the brief. Fortunately, Plaintiffs’ counsel was able to complete the brief and tile
same at 12:28 p.m. on October 13.
4. At no time did Plaintiffs” counsel actually seek an extension, nor was there
a stipulation executed in order to request an extension. Plaintiffs} counsel instead
represented during the October l2 teleconference that if there was a need for same he
would contact defense counsel. Again, Plaintiffs” counsel expressed his appreciation to
defense counsel for the willingness to grant a two or three day extension. At that time,
defense counsel did state that if a two to three day extension were granted to Plaintiffs,

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 78 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 3 of 3
defense counsel would then request an extension until mid-November due to the vacation
schedule.
5. On Tuesday, October 17, defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel by
telephone advising that they had just received the brief and that they were requesting an
extension until mid-November. Plaintiffs’ counsel, after conferring with colleagues,
expressed his regret to defense counsel advising them that a limited extension could be
granted ast Plaintiffs’ counsel would be amenable to an extension until October 25, but
not amenable to an extension until mid-November. The reason stated was Plaintiffs’
economic interests could be severely prejudiced by a period of eight to ten months if
Defendants? motion was not ruled upon by the Court.
6. Plaintiffs’ counsel recognizes that this is indeed a very unusual
circumstance and has never before refused a colleague’s request for a continuance.
However, in this case, Plaintiffs’ interests far outweighed the need for defense counsel to
have more than twelve days to file a reply brief in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ counsel respectfully requests an extension oftime be
granted in this matter extending the date for Defendants Reply Brief to October 25, 2006.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
/s/ Jeffrey K. Martin
Jeffrey K. Martin (Del. Bar N0. 2407)
1509 Gilpin Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19806
(302)-777-4680
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Dated: October 19, 2006

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 78

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 78

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 78

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 3 of 3