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

I r~r7*··‘ ·— ··M~e~——~———————-—··-——————-— --»-l_—;_...I.....I. .. ,_._,
Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 40 Filed 12I{Q§5/ O_Q3I.I, IPage_1 ,of 1
- ° · * *¢~.>>I>w—I
`I I
TI
" I »» UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I I
I :
I l [
BRIDGEPORT AND PORT JEFFERSON I
STEAMBOAT COMPANY, etal., I _LII,,k.·
CASE NO. Ié:03 CV 599 (CFD)‘ A
Plaintiffs, I _ ‘
- against — I
·_ .. I
BRIDGEPORT PORT AUTHORITY, November 2,0, 2 03 ‘ I
I { ` I
I ` Defendant. _' _, I
/ I P. il I _ I
- MOTION ON CONSENT TO EXTEND DISCOVEIIY D ADEINESE L · ,_ _
.,5 Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), plaintiffs hereby move, with defend t’s consent, for-an
LIL) I O W I
Egif I is nsion of the current discovery deadlines, and in support thereof Itate s follows:
raf: · - . I
@12 Q 1. This is the second request for an extension of the dis¤Iover deadlines. Counsel I
·.'` I defendant Bridgeport Port Authority (the “Port Authority"), Suz.I1nne . Montgomery, I
sented to this motion in a telephone conversation with plaintiffs’I cou sel, Martin Domb, on I
I 3 - I
`°"‘. ovember 20, 2003.
` I
2. The parties filed the joint Report of Parties’ PlanningI Mee ing Pursuant to Local
I
Rule 26(e) (the “Rule 26(e) Report") on July 15, 2003, and the CourIl app oved it by endorsement
dated August 27, 2003. The original dates in the Rule 26(e) Report Iare s I forth in the chart in
I
I
paragraph 3 below.
I
3. By motion dated September 9, 2003, plaintiffs (with Ilefe dant’s consent) sought
I .
a two-month extension of the original dates. The Court granted thatI exte sion by endorsement
%
on October l, 2003. The original dates (per the Rule 26(e) Report) and t e extended dates
I
. I
currently in effect (per the endorsed prior motion) were / are as foll I
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED I
INY0lS36'7.l I I
_ __ _ e·. ~· -·=- A »·»»*»»·~·~· —-·.—-—~e-— I ellllln I I I
—‘ rr `fi`
_ __, _' "':"°A7"""":`)`}`°°`)""""")"`r"."`-'K NO - l l l l l l l l l l