Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 20.3 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 908 Words, 5,522 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/43341/334.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona ( 20.3 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona
OSBORN MALEDON
A PR O FESSI O NA L A SSO CIA TI O N A T T O R N E Y S A T LA W

1 2
______________________

3
The Phoenix Plaza 21st Floor 2929 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, Arizona 85067-6379 Telephone Facsimile 602.640.9000 602.640.9050

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

David B. Rosenbaum, Atty. No. 009819 Dawn L. Dauphine, Atty. No. 010833 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 640-9000 [email protected] [email protected] Michael L. Banks, Pro Hac Vice Azeez Hayne, Pro Hac Vice MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 [email protected] [email protected] Howard Shapiro, Pro Hac Vice PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 310-4088 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Barbara Allen, Richard Dippold, Melvin Jones, Donald McCarty, Richard Scates and Walter G. West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, and Plan Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Defendants. No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS Amy Covert, Pro Hac Vice PROSKAUER ROSE LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 274-3258 [email protected] Christopher Landau, P.C., PHV (pending) Eleanor R. Barrett, PHV (pending) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 [email protected] [email protected]

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 334

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 1 of 4

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 27 28

In response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, Defendants state as follows: 1. As a matter of professional courtesy, Defendants do not oppose an

extension of time through and including December 21, 2007, in light of Plaintiffs' counsel's "other conflicting work deadlines and other work commitments." Mot., at 2. Should the Court grant Plaintiffs additional time through December 21, 2007, Defendants ask that the Court re-set the deadline for the filing of Defendants' Reply brief to January 11, 2008 because of the holiday period, and Defendants' counsel's other conflicting work deadlines and other work commitments. 2. In contrast, Defendants do oppose an indefinite extension of time "until

thirty (30) days after" Plaintiffs' request for discovery has been resolved. The Motion for Reconsideration has been on file since November 16, 2007. The Motion was filed because the Court indicated its desire to expedite this matter. The Motion is important and has a broad impact upon the entire case because it resolves two-thirds of the claims at issue. Rapid resolution of the Motion to Reconsider, prior to the start of the discovery period which cannot resume until some time after the February 7, 2008, Fairness Hearing, allows the parties to focus their remaining discovery work. Rapid resolution of the Motion to Reconsider also implicates fewer judicial resources. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration raises purely legal issues. Plaintiffs seek irrelevant discovery and seek to delay their response indefinitely until issues implicated by their irrelevant discovery requests are resolved. The parties are submitting a letter to the Court as to the discovery issues. As stated in that letter, if Plaintiffs believe that discovery is necessary to resolve the Motion, they are free to make that argument in their opposition motion (just as parties routinely do in opposing summary judgment). Plaintiffs' argument that discovery is necessary to resolve the Motion, however, is not a /// ///

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

2 Document 334

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 2 of 4

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 27 28

reason to delay briefing on the Motion. Once the Motion is fully briefed, the Court can determine for itself whether discovery is necessary or appropriate. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of December, 2007. OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. By: /s/David B. Rosenbaum David B. Rosenbaum Dawn L. Dauphine Osborn Maledon, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Michael L. Banks Azeez Hayne MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Howard Shapiro PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112-4017 Amy Covert PROSKAUER ROSE LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5211 Christopher Landau, P.C. Eleanor R. Barrett KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-5793 Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

3 Document 334

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 3 of 4

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 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
1849182_1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do certify that on December 7th, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF registrants.

s/Kelly Dourlein

4 Document 334

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 4 of 4