Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv—00069-GIVIS Document 54 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 1 of 1
Potter
.,AU.d€?T$UI'l smh E. DiLuzi0
LU) Attorney at Law
13 13 North Market Street [email protected]
P.(>. Box 951 302 984-6279 Direct Phone
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 302 658-1192 Fax
302 984-6000
WVt'W.p0l`t€I‘HlId0!'S0l'\.C0lT\
August 5, 2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-F ILE
The Honorable M. Sleet Gregory
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: McNeil Nutritionals v. Sugar Association, et al.
C. A. No.: 05-69 (GMS)
Dear Judge Sleet:
I write on behalf of the Defendants in this action in response to the Court’s Order
denying the Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendants to file their Reply Brief in further support
of their Motion to Dismiss, pending receipt of an explanation for the request. (D.I. 53)
Defendants sought an extension of one week to file their reply, to which plaintiffs
consented, for several reasons. First, the Plaintiffs’ answering brief was voluminous,
encompassing some 36 pages, was supported by several declarations, and attached 38 exhibits.
Due to the size of this answering brief, the complexity of the issues involved, and the interjection
of a number of new materials, Defendants believe it is necessary to devote more than 5 business
days to their reply. Second, lead counsel for Defendants is currently on a week—long holiday.
Third, there are twenty defendants involved in this action and counsel needs time to coordinate
the responses of these defendants so that they may present a unified reply brief that Defendants
believe will aid the Court in efficiently considering this motion.
Counsel are available at the Court's convenience if Your Honor has any
questions. Otherwise, we request that the stipulation be accepted by the Court as filed.
Sincerely yours,
I
J qV_,,,,_ xl Gcwk//J /;.9],L, pjw
Sarah E. DiLuzio `
cc: Steven J. Balick, Esquire (via e-file and hand delivery)
693569