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

Case 3:00-cv-01043-JCH

Document 56

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT __________________________________________ : NITOR V. EGBARIN, :CASE NO. 3:00 CV 01043 (JCH) AND JANET J. EGBARIN : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : LEWIS, LEWIS & FERRARO LLC, : SCOTT F. LEWIS, CLAUDE J. PICARD : AND PAULINE M. PICARD : Defendants. : MAY 27, 2005 _________________________________________ :

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS "NUNC PRO TUNC" Pursuant to Rules 7 and 16 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut, the Defendants hereby move that this Court grant an extension of time, up to and including, June 1, 2005 to file a dispositive motion in this case. Further, the defendants request that this Court enter such order granting this extension of time "nunc pro tunc." The reasons for this motion are as follows. A district court has the inherent authority to modify pretrial procedural deadlines to serve the best interest of justice by eliminating unnecessary proof issues by weeding

NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

1

Case 3:00-cv-01043-JCH

Document 56

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 2 of 6

out unsupportable claims. Gomez v. Trustees of Harvard University, 676 F.Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1987). Enclosed herewith are the above-mentioned defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment with respect to the entire action. It is believed that these Motions for Summary Judgment will completely dispose of this matter. On or about September 24, 2004, the parties submitted a joint Rule 26(f) Report of the parties' planning meeting in connection with pre-trial deadlines in this matter. In that document it was agreed by the parties that dispositive motions would be filed on or before June 1, 2005. Thereafter, on October 28, 2004, the Honorable Janet C. Hall signed a joint report of parties' planning meeting endorsement [DKPO.no.41]. On this document, Judge Hall indicated that dispositive motions were due on May 1, 2005. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time with respect to discovery deadlines on or about December 10, 2004. The Court, by electronic order only, on or about December 21, 2004 stated that the plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time was granted in part and denied in part. The electronic order reads as follows, "Motion granted for 30 days only; facts to 5/1/05; discovery motions to 6/1/05; plaintiff's expert discovery to 2/3/05. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 12/20/04. (Boroskey, C.)

2

Case 3:00-cv-01043-JCH

Document 56

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 3 of 6

In addition, another order was issued in this matter the same day reading as follows, "Docket text: set deadlines: discovery due by 6/1/2005. (Boroskey, C.)

Depositions were conducted in this matter through the middle of April, 2005. Transcripts and exhibits relating to these depositions were not forwarded to counsel until early May, 2005. Since that time, all the defendants have filed their Answers and Special Defenses to the Plaintiff's latest complaint and have been working diligently on dispositive motions. The defendants were under the impression that they had to file said dispositive motions on or before June 1, 2005. The extension ordered by the Judge indicates that fact depositions could occur through 5/1/05 and discovery motions could be filed by 6/1/05. It seems inconceivable that the deadline for fact depositions would also be the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. In addition, it seems illogical that discovery motions could be filed until to 6/1/05 when dispositive motions would have to be filed earlier. Cause for the modification of pre-trial deadline orders has been shown where the deadline for dispositive motions could not be reasonably met regardless of the diligence of the party seeking extension. See Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Services, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295 (D. Kan. 1996) and Scheidecker v. Arvig Enterprises, Inc., 193 F.RD. 630 (D. Minn. 2000).

3

Case 3:00-cv-01043-JCH

Document 56

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 4 of 6

The defendants submit that they have meritorious dispositive motions that should be entertained by this Court for the purpose of determining whether summary disposition is appropriate. Therefore, the undersigned pray that this Court grant an extension of time to file dispositive motions "nunc pro tunc" up to and including June 1, 2005 pursuant to Rule 7 and Rule 16 of the local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut. The undersigned have inquired of the opposing party and there is no opposition to this motion. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of May, 2005. DEFENDANTS, CLAUDE J. AND PAULINE M. PICARD BY: _________________________ JOSEPH V. MEANEY, JR., ESQ. Cranmore, FitzGerald & Meaney 49 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114-1102 Tel: (860) 522-9100 CT 04315

DEFENDANTS, LEWIS, LEWIS & FERRARO LLC AND SCOTT LEWIS BY: _________________________ THOMAS J. HAGARTY, ESQ. Halloran & Sage Goodwin Square 225 Asylim St. Hartford, CT 06103 Tel: (860) 522-6103

4

Case 3:00-cv-01043-JCH

Document 56

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 5 of 6

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, first-class mail, postage pre-paid, on this 27th day of May, 2005.

Nitor V. Egbarin and Janet J. Egbarin P.O. Box 230421 Hartford, CT 06123-0421 Nitor V. Egbarin and Janet J. Egbarin 28 Ely Place Simsbury, CT 06070 Thomas J. Hagarty, Esq. Halloran & Sage Goodwin Square Hartford, CT 06103

BY:___________________________ JOSEPH V. MEANEY, JR. Cranmore, FitzGerald & Meaney

5

Case 3:00-cv-01043-JCH

Document 56

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 6 of 6

6