Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Stephen T. Sullivan (#016038) ROBERTS, MLOTKOWSI & HOBBES, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue Suite 1140 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4586 Telephone: (602) 956-6161 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lawrence D. Graham (Pro Hac Vice) David A. Lowe (Pro Hac Vice) BLACK LOWE & GRAHAM PLLC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 381-3304 Todd Feltus (#19076) SNELL & WILMER LLP One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Telephone (602) 382-6300 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Desert Extrusion Corp., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff, vs. K2, Inc., a California corporation, and Shakespeare Company Monofilament Division, a division of K2, Inc.; Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 02-02180-PHX-JAT STIPUTLATED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RE: BILL OF COSTS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT (First Request)

Case 2:02-cv-02180-JAT

Document 96

Filed 10/21/2005

Page 1 of 3

MOTION The parties hereby move jointly for, and stipulate to, an extension of time regarding the briefing schedule relating to costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and Local Rule Civ. 54.1, so that the timing requirements for filing under those rules begin to accrue ten days after a decision on the pending Motion Under Rules 59 and 60, if such briefing is not mooted by the Court's ruling on the Rule 59 and 60 Motion. This extension of time will not impact other due dates set by the Court. The motion is supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and authorities. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of October, 2005. ROBERTS, MLOTKOWSKI & HOBBES

By

s / Stephen T. Sullivan Stephen T. Sullivan Attorneys for Plaintiff

BLACK LOWE & GRAHAM, PLLC

By

s / Lawrence D. Graham Lawrence D. Graham David A. Lowe Attorneys for Defendants

2 Case 2:02-cv-02180-JAT Document 96 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 2 of 3

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES This Motion is filed in an attempt to avoid potentially unnecessary work, burdens and expense on the parties and the Court in view of the pending Motion under Rules 59 and 60. If the Court grants any part of the Rule 59 and 60 Motion, the Judgment of September 23, 2005 will be vacated. If that occurs, either costs will no longer be available at this time and the issue mooted, or the briefing schedule relating to bills of cost will change. The parties, wishing to avoid the burden and expense of briefing the cost issues if not ultimately necessary, wish to defer this work, potentially all together and at the very least until the Court has resolved the pending Rule 59 and 60 Motion. If the Court denies the Rule 59 and 60 Motion, the parties can address the cost issues at that time, effectively treating the decision on the Rule 59 and 60 Motion as a final judgment. This request is being made to preserve judicial resources, and those of the parties. It is not being made to delay the proceedings or for any improper purpose. A proposed Order is attached for the convenience of the Court. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of October, 2005. ROBERTS, MLOTKOWSKI & HOBBES By s / Stephen T. Sullivan Stephen T. Sullivan Attorneys for Plaintiff

BLACK LOWE & GRAHAM By s / Lawrence D. Graham Lawrence D. Graham David A. Lowe Attorneys for Defendants

3 Case 2:02-cv-02180-JAT Document 96 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 3 of 3