Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Charles D. Onofry ­ 012837 ReNae A. Nachman ­ 022614 SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, P.C. 3101 North Central Avenue Suite 600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2658 Telephone: (602) 200-1280 Fax: (602) 230-8985 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Chemical Lime Company of Arizona IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA STEVEN SCHRUM, Plaintiff, vs. THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. No. CIV04-619-PHX-RCB RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND (Assigned to the Honorable Robert C. Broomfield)

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY OF ARIZONA, a corporation, ABC Corporations I-IV, fictitious corporations, Third-Party Defendant.

Third-Party Defendant Chemical Lime Company, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff's motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motions filed by Defendant Burlington Northern ("BNSF") and Third-Party Defendant Chemical Lime.

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document 80

Filed 02/17/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

In short, Chemical Lime does not oppose the motion insofar as it relates to an extension necessary to secure Dr. Lindsey's deposition testimony which was concluded on February 14, 2006. Although Chemical Lime does not believe that

Dr. Lindsey's testimony will add anything to Plaintiff's response, Chemical Lime has no objection to their requested extension allowing Plaintiff to incorporate Dr. Lindsey's testimony. Chemical Lime does object, however, to that part of the motion which seeks to extend the response time so as to obtain the deposition of a BNSF doctor. Candidly, it is unclear what this testimony might possibly add to the motion. Even so, there is no reason to further delay the briefing of the motion. Plaintiff has had more than sufficient time to notice those depositions he may deem necessary to support his case. Moreover, counsel's claim that he did not secure these depositions because he relied on Defendants' representation that they would mediate the case instead of filing summary judgment motions is not entirely correct. It is true that the parties discussed and generally agreed that mediation may be useful. There was no agreement that Defendants would waive their right to file summary judgment motions. Indeed,

Defendants filed these motions because of the Court-imposed deadline. In addition, undersigned counsel is not aware of any attempt that Plaintiff made to actually arrange a mediation. For all these reasons, Third-Party Defendant Chemical Lime respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion only insofar as necessary to allow him to secure Dr. Lindsey's testimony which was taken on February 14, 2006.

///

/// Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB Document -80 2 Filed 02/17/2006 Page 2 of 3

Response - Plf's Mot Extension

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Dated this 16th day of February, 2006. SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, P.C.

By

s/ Charles D. Onofry Charles D. Onofry ReNae A. Nachman 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2658 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Chemical Lime Company of Arizona

COPY of the foregoing e-served this 16th day of February, 2006, to: George T. Burgess, Esq. HOEY & FARINA, PC 542 South Dearborn, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60605 Attorneys for Plaintiff William L. Thorpe, Esq. Sal J. Rivera, Esq. FENNEMORE CRAIG 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2913 Attorneys for BNSF By s/ Janice Froechte

Response - Plf's Mot Extension

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document -80 3

Filed 02/17/2006

Page 3 of 3