Free Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00366-KAJ

Document 38

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BRIAN D. NEEFE, individually and as next of friend to Lacey Knudson, Plaintiff, vs. RODNEY LAYFIELD and DELAWARE STATE POLICE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 04-366-KAJ

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE HIS ANSWERING BRIEF The Delaware Department of Justice, on behalf of defendants Sergeant Rodney Layfield and the Delaware State Police, opposes the motion of plaintiff Brian D. Neefe ("Neefe") for a seventeenday extension of time to file an answering brief to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In support of this opposition, the Department of Justice states as follows: 1. Defendants' counsel regrets having to trouble the Court with this matter and

normally would have tried to agree with opposing counsel about such procedural matters, however, Neefe's request for a seventeen-day of extension of time directly impacts the mediation scheduled with Magistrate-Judge Thynge on September 19, 2005. 2. On May 18, 2005, this Court entered a Rule 16 Scheduling Order providing that "[a]ll

case dispositive motions, if any, in support of the motion shall be served and filed on or before August 22, 2005. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the Local Court's Rules."

Case 1:04-cv-00366-KAJ

Document 38

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 2 of 4

3.

On August 22, 2005, the defendants electronically filed and served a motion for

summary judgment and opening brief in support. Under the Local Rules, Neefe had until September 6, 2005 to file an answering brief. 4. Neefe did not file a timely answering brief, nor did he file a timely motion for an

extension of time. See Local Rule 16.5 (requests for extensions of deadlines "shall be made by motion or stipulation prior to expiration of the date deadline"). On September 7, 2005, Neefe filed a motion to extend the time to file his answering brief from September 6 until September 23, 2005. According to Neefe's counsel, he "was on vacation outside the State of Delaware and did not return to his office until September 6, 2005 and thus had no notification of the motion until that date." 5. Neefe's counsel has known since May 18, 2005 when this Court entered its Rule

16 Scheduling Order that defendants might file a dispositive motion on August 22, 2005. Indeed, in depositions in July 2005, Neefe's counsel indicated that he would need an extension of time to respond to the defendants' anticipated summary judgment motion because he would be on vacation the last week of August. 6. Neefe's motion fails to explain why he needs an additional seventeen days to

respond to the State's summary judgment motion other than that he is busy "catching up." If this Court grants Neefe's motion, then Neefe will have until September 23, 2005 to file his answering brief. That briefing schedule will render the mediation with the Magistrate-Judge now scheduled for September 19, 2005 all but pointless. At the initial teleconference with Judge Thynge, the Court and the parties specifically chose that date because, under the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, the briefing on dispositive motions would have been completed by September 13, 2005. 7. The Court is aware how full the Judge Thynge's mediation calendar is, and it is 2

Case 1:04-cv-00366-KAJ

Document 38

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 3 of 4

unlikely that the parties will be able to find an alternate mediation date before the three-day jury trial starts on November 29, 2005. 8. The defendants are amenable to a shorter extension of time for Neefe to file and

serve his answering brief: until September 15, 2005. That will give defendants' counsel at least one business day to review the answering brief prior to the mediation scheduled for September 19, 2005. WHEREFORE, defendants ask this Court to deny Neefe's motion for an extension of time or, in the alternative, to shorten the time requested and require Neefe to file and serve his answering brief no later than September 15, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ W. Michael Tupman W. Michael Tupman Deputy Attorney General Delaware Department of Justice 102 West Water Street, 3rd Floor Dover, DE 19901 (302) 739-7641 Attorney for Defendants

Date: September 7, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 7th day of September, 2005, I served by electronic filing a copy of the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion To Extend Time To File His Answering Brief;

Case 1:04-cv-00366-KAJ

Document 38

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 4 of 4

and that on September 9, 2005, I caused to be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, two copies of that Opposition to:

Edward C. Gill, Esquire 16 N. Bedford Street P.O. Box 824 Georgetown, DE 19947 Counsel of Record for Plaintiff

/s/ W. Michael Tupman W. Michael Tupman

I:\TUPMAN\FILES\neefe.opposition.time.wpd

4