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

{ I M ` Case 3:02-cv-O19 I14/ 1 '\\
• N I) F• /· {
I 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
E 3 FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
e 2 s —~—————-—~——._.___ I O
-6-O O ·
L2 .0- § DUNKIN’ DONUTS INCORPORATED, )
*1 g fg a Delaware corporation, and )
§ S E DUNI _ E 2; g a Michigan corporation, )
§ 1% QI Plaintiffs, )
§ g g ) C.A. No. 302 CV 1920 (MRK) I
E 3 E V. ) {
QI E 3 ) I
E E 5, DONUTS, INC., ) ·
E § § a Comiecticut corporation, ) I
03
m 5 ¤ RANDO, INC., ) _ (___ __
§· SI 9:; a Connecticut corporation, )
{ ,_‘; gs LENN STETZER, ) G?
< gg { THLEEN STETZER, ) EI 31.; "‘I·—;
g gg IrEORGEGERMANO,m1d ) g’ ,£Z;;~
§ _g Q AMES MCMANAMA ) ,{Tg=.Q`[' ILT; firs;
·•-• C ·Y·*" ”‘ I JIT;-. `*`~·
E D ) _.;i;_ 5;-I Z: i I-—~,`}’
g I; E Defendants. ) my
8 9 3 NOVEMBER 5, 2003 °"‘ ‘
X
'¤ cn 3
II I sz ,
{U -I-4 '¤
U O 3 It
G) ‘ ` ‘
_=E E PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO DEPOSE I
§{ ,§ DEFENDANTS JAMES MCMANAMA AND 4 QONUTS, INC.
(IJ ..__
5 °° Plaintiffs Dunkin’ Donuts Incorporated and Dunkin’ Donuts USA, Inc. respectfully
0 `E E
-•-· 3 .9 I
5 `¤ `E re uest that the Court ant Plaintiffs additional time to complete the depositions of Detfendants
U g Q, Q ST
.¤ .2 52 . .
9 g B James McManama and 4 Donuts, Inc. Defendant James McManama has refused to testify for {
-•-¤ D Q)
_§ § more than seven hours, despite the fact that he was noticed for a deposition individually and was
Ԥ qi QI;
E § 5 also Defendant 4 Donuts, Inc. to testify on a number of topics. In support of this
§ II: I;i;I gy .
C 0 E I.I.I _j_; Q. {
ug $$9 I *·~·* I I`!) iZ.Il`I
g gf SI .... L2
I 5 <¤ =~%g;2
.. G) :7.:5 ..1
c Ii S {
I E I I I
{I II,
i II I
- I I
I {I
I · I .
- II I I
I I | I
i II
II I
II
` II I
II I
II I
t I
· II I I
I II I
- II I

I I I