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

Case 1 :04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 1 18 Filed 02/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP
STRADLEY ma. cicc Sa
r Philadelphia, PA 19103·7098
S, RQNQN
Id/ATTORNEYS AT LAW F°"(215)564’8l2°
www.s¤·adley.com
Samuel J. Arena, Jr.
(215) 564-8093
[email protected] ‘
February 2, 2006
VIA TELECOPIER AND FEDERAL EXPRESS l _
- The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet A
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 North King Street
Room 4324, Lockbox 19
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Donald M Durkin Contracting, Inc. v. City of Newark, et aL
U.S.D.C. Del., Civil Action No. 04-0163-GMS .
Dear Judge Sleet:
My firm represents Federal Insurance Company, the surety on the project at issue
in this lawsuit. I am writing as a follow-up to my call to your chambers concerning Your
_ Honor’s ruling granting the parties’ request to extend the fact discovery cut-off to June 30, 2006
(making it the same as the expert discovery cut-off date), and also precluding the parties from
filing case dispositive motions. Federal did not understand that consenting to this time extension
would prejudice its right to file a dispositive motion. Had Federal known that would be part of
the outcome, Federal never would have consented. Federal agreed to the extension to
accommodate the substantial discovery between Newark and Durkin.
As your Honor may recall, Federal raised the issue of Federal’s case dispositive
motion during the status conference with Your Honor on September 8, 2005. Federal has always
intended to iile a case dispositive motion. Federal was fully prepared to tile its dispositive
motion as of the status conference on September 8, 2005. However, Your Honor indicated it was
the Court’s preference to have Federal wait. F ederal’s motion is based entirely on the law, the
- contracts and written communications among the parties. Deposition testimony will not add to
or subtract Hom the relevant facts necessary for the Court to resolve Federal’s summary
judgment motion. In compliance with Your Honor’s preference as expressed during the status
conference Federal postponed tiling its summaiy judgment motion.
Fact discovery was originally to end on February 20, 2006 and summary judgment
motions were due on March 14, 2006. Expert discovery is scheduled to be completed by
Philadelphia, PA • Malvern, PA • Harrisburg, PA • Wilmington, DE • Cherry Hill, N] • Washington, DC

Case 1 :04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 1 18 Filed 02/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet - q
February 2, 2006
Page 2
Jtme 30, 2006. It was the intention ofthe parties by their earlier request simply to provide more
time for fact discovery so that depositions which could not be completed by the original fact
discovery date could be taken during the originally scheduled expert discovery period.
Significantly, neither Federal nor any of the parties asked for an extension of the dispositive
motion deadline or any other deadline in the Court’s scheduling order. Federal was and is fully
prepared to file its dispositive motion for summary judgment on the Court’s original timetable of
March 14, 2006.
It would severely prejudice Federal in this litigation if Federal were not permitted
to lile a dispositive motion. Consequently, we respectfully request the Court to amend its
January 31, 2006 Order so as to permit Federal (and only Federal) to tile a dispositive motion in
accordance with the Court’s original timetable. We have spoken to counsel representing each of
the parties and all consent to F ederal’s request. A Stipulation conirming counse1’s agreement is
enclosed.
Respectfully submitted,
Samuel J. Arena, Jr.
_ SJA:jnp n
` cc: Paul Cottrell (via facsimile and Mail) -
Paul A. Logan, Esquire (via facsimile and Mail)
James S. Green (via facsimile and Mail)
Patrick R. Kingsley, Esquire

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 118

Filed 02/05/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 118

Filed 02/05/2006

Page 2 of 2