Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

i . Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 52 Filed O3/O3/2004 Page 1 of 1
l L/ 5
i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT `- li
· DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT h q s
i BRIDGEPORT AND PORT JEFFERSON M _. 5 t_ . "
STEAMBOAT COMPANY, et al., , J.; »;,\·_;;, ig
CASE NO. 3:03 CV 599 (CFD)‘ `
Plaintiffs, R KN
— against -
BRIDGEPORT PORT AUTHORITY, February 26, 2004
Defendant.
___/
, JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES
rg Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), plaintiffs and defendant `ointly move for an extension of the
E ca J 2
VU • i
B , £c$ent discovery deadlines, and in support thereof state as follows: ’
_; > @3 l. Counsel for defendant Bridgeport Port Authority (the "Port Authority"), Edward
~ ca
Q Emheppard, confirmed, in a telephone conversation with plaintiffs’ counsel, Martin Domb, on i
t _-,a ., m-· l
" ·:§·;|@l>ruary 25, 2004, that the Port Authority joins in this motion. 1
e-· 0 i
§ --` ` 1 E 2. The parties twice before have moved, on consent, to extend the discovery
CQ u m
deadlines. On December 3, 2003, the Court so—ordered the parties’ second request to extend the S
discovery deadlines. That motion set forth the procedural history of this case through November
20, ·2.003;Et;he date of the motion. To avoid repetition, we attach hereto a copy of that prior, so-
A 0
ordeied,
Q 4 _ I
U}, ·,f,§_ this motion, the parties seek a two—month further extension of the current l
n i~ _gE*,Q;~.g_
`zgeadlihés. 'iiljéreason for this request is that the parties were unable to schedule all of the i
un sr (;·E;?"` ·
necessgr factvlepositions for completion prior the end of February (the current deadline for fact I
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
[NYG20232.1 }
.-.- : i--··— ; -1.· r ‘’·.· 2 *e=. . t.e -¢¢=»·= .~‘-=<-.’·-i: · i

""""‘;“1"‘** ’’‘· ‘·;·;—‘—‘—r~*-—>-.<..,a;.,,__,__,.. . . .

""""";"‘;*=··—\··-·*sf;-;»··»*·~.».»,,,,__,__/Mihewr·u T _ , _ i _