Free Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00877-JJF Document 89 Filed O2/21/2008 Page1 0f3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROLAND C. ANDERSON, :
Plaintiff, i
v. ; Civil Action No. 05-877-JJF
GENERAL MOTORS, ;
Defendants. ;
QQ
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, who proceeds prg se, filed a Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law (D.I. 44) on 6/28/O7, a Motion To
Dismiss His Order for A Deposition (D.I. 56) on 9/25/O7, a Motion
for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (D.I. 64) on
10/24/O7, and a Motion for Extension of Time to take Deposition
(D.I. 67) on IO/30/07;
WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I.
79) on I2/7/2007;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment relates solely to
the Motion for Reconsideration that was denied by the Court (D.I.
46) on 8/is/07,
WHEREAS, by his Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff contends that
he was given inadequate notice of his deposition; however,
parties rescheduled Plaintiff’s deposition to a mutually
convenient time;
WHEREAS, by his identical Motions for Extension of Time,

Case 1:OS-;cv-OOS;7—JJF- Document 89 Filed O2/21/2008 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff seeks additional time to depose Terry Tyndall
(“Tyndall"), an employee of Defendant who was unavailable because
of medical leave. As Plaintiff has not presented any argument
regarding Tyndall's relevance and has not rebutted Defendant’s
assertion that Tyndall's sole involvement in this matter is
signing for receipt of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff has failed to establish Tyndall's relevance to
Plaintiff’s remaining claims;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff correctly notes that Defendant mistakenly
placed the case number of a previously consolidated case on some
attachments to its Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant placed
the correct case number on its actual Motion, however, and the
Court finds that no prejudice to Plaintiff resulted from
Defendant’s erroneous captioning. Nonetheless, the Court will
extend additional time to Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment; .
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment (D.I. 44) is DENIED as
moot;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss His Order for a
Deposition (D.I. 56} is DENIED as moot;
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery (D.I. 64) and Motion for Extension of Time to
take Deposition (D.I. 67) are DENIED;

Case 1:05-cv-00877-JJF Document 89 Filed O2/21/2008 Page 3 of 3
4. Plaintiff is granted ten days from the date of this
order to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (D.I. 79);
5. Plaintiff's pretrial conference, scheduled for March 6,
2008, is CANCELLED.
February 2.], 2008 - / rékia/cel
ITE STAEES DISTRI UDGE
K