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

Case 3:OO—cv-00973-AHN Document 60 Filed O1/21/2004 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
I DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
V TIMOTHY HAYES,
. Case N0.: 3:00CV0973 (AHN) (HBF)
Plaintiff, V .
-against-
L COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., d/b/a EUREST
( I DINING SERVICES and CARY ORLANDI,
Defendants. JANUARY 21, 2004
MOTION FOR ONE-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT V
Pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)2, defendants Compass Group USA, Inc. ("Compass
Group") and Cary Orlandi (collectively "defendants") move for leave to file the accompanying I
Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition To Summary Judgment, as well as the Affidavit of Counsel and a
related Motion to Strike, one day after expiration of the deadline for filing the reply. In support
of this motion, defendants state:
Counsel for defendants has attempted to confer with counsel for plaintiff to obtain
his assent to this motion, but has been unable to reach plaintiffs counsel (defendants are
informed that plaintiff s counsel has been in court and unable to respond).
p 2. The deadline for filing reply papers in connection with defendants’ motion for
summary judgment was January 20, 2004. Defendants’ reply (and accompanying submissions)
was drafted by trial counsel in Boston and reviewed by Connecticut counsel. The reply, together
with a related motion to strike certain of plaintiffs exhibits from the record, was finalized and
electronically transmitted to Cormecticut counsel at approximately 2:30 p.m. on January 20,

i Case 3:00-cv-00973-AHN Document 60 Filed 01/21/2004 Page 2 of 4
` 2004, for execution and filing. The supporting affidavit of counsel arrived at Connecticut
counsel’s office by overnight delivery earlier that same day. At the time of this e-mail
i transmission, however, Connecticut counsel was defending a deposition in Sandy Hook,
Connecticut. Although it was anticipated that the deposition would conclude early enough to
allow counsel to return to his office in Stamford, review and sign the pleadings, and have them
delivered to the Court by messenger before the Clerk’s office closed, the court reporter arrived
late for the deposition and had scheduling complications and, as a result of this and the
unexpected scope of the examination, the deposition did not conclude until after 3:00 p.m.
i Connecticut counsel did not arrive back at his office in Stamford until after 4:30 p.m., at which
5 point it was too late to have the papers filed in Bridgeport.
3. The reply and accompanying submissions, including the motion to strike, have
not been altered since transmitted by Boston counsel at approximately 2:30 p.m. on January 20,
2004, and the affidavit of counsel was already signed when it arrived at the office of Connecticut
counsel earlier that day. Connecticut counsel served these papers on plaintiffs counsel by
Federal Express, ovemight delivery, on January 20, 2004, and received an e-mail confirming
_ delivery on January 21, 2004, at 9:26 a.m. Consequently, no prejudice would inure to plaintiff
by virtue of an Order granting the instant motion.
4. This is defendants’ first request for an extension of the deadline for filing reply
papers in connection with their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, however, has twice
Q filed motions for an extension of time to submit his opposition, to which defendants assented.
The Court granted both of plaintiff s extensions.
2

Case 3:OO—cv-00973-AHN Document 60 Filed O1/21/2004 Page 3 of 4
( For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause having been shown, defendants
respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and permit defendants to file the
_ accompanying reply brief] together with the affidavit of counsel and a related motion to strike.
Respectfully submitted,
1 l
THE DEFENDANTS,
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC. and CARY
1 ORLANDI
By their attorneys,
Lawrence Peikes (ct 07913)
i Wiggin and Dana LLP
400 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901-3234
(203) 363-7600
(203) 363-7676 (fax)
A -and- l
Christopher A. Kenney (ct2501 7) _
Margaret H. Paget (ct250l6)
( Sherin and Lodgen LLP
j 100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
A (617) 646-2000


i
1
l .

Case 3:OO—cv-00973-AHN Document 60 Filed O1/21/2004 Page 4 of 4
U I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on the 2lst day of January, 2004, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing MOTION FOR ONE-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO
I PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ' was served via facsimile
t
l
transmission and first-class U.S., postage pre-paid, on the following:
Stephen McEleney, Esq.
p McEleney & McGrail
5 363 Main Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Lawrence Peikes I
i \l4926\l\82ll6.l
{