Free Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. --.rL.,. _ _ ......__.-_-..._.m________.,nm____.____L.n.Lr___u_._,.LL___
_ ‘ Case 3:OO—cv-OO70t3{CFD Document 87 Filed O2/O2{2DOd»/'?O§gq)q)mé;E§1(h3€ l
C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT an
DISTRICT or CONNECTICUT Ml Jiri O
A hi {IZ U _ 1
. J 1 ir ·-·» . . . b '
In re: PE Corporation Securities Litigation : Master File No. 3:00CV705(CFD}yl]ii
4Q Wal
S, I
J : January 30, 2004

{__ >\ U-) CLC _
QQ *° ii;
mm ll QQEQPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT 1
cu EEO
\ , 1 ·-wg Lead;Plai1{yi;@ David Berlin and Vinh Vuong (“Lead Plaintiffs"), through their undersigned N
QIIW LAIJ N-- U
•..•... C3 ~<£.‘Z
Q \couifE'&, herggy mgyeifor a 25-page extension of Local Rule 7(d)’s page limit for reply briefs. In
E support of this motion, Lead Plaintiffs represent: q
x l. Lead Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on July 18, 2003. The I
E memorandum in support of that motion, which was only 17 pages in length, did not exhaust Local Rule
Q 7(a)’s 40 page allowance for such memoranda. Indeed, if plaintiffs’ request is granted, the extra pages
requested will only exceed Local Rule 7’s combined opening and reply brief totals by only 2 pages.
x 2. Defendants obtained deposition testimony from Lead Plaintiffs Vinh Vuong and David l
`\~
Y Berlin on November 5, 2003 and November ll, 2003, respectively, concerning Lead Plaintiffs’
é qualifications to serve as class representatives.
3. Thereafter, Defendants filed their Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification on December 29, 2003. That memorandum, which was 39 pages in
length, raised arguments that were not addressed in Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. I
Those arguments concern: (i) whether the investing public possessed the very information that Lead
nocsuvszssva
l
1
1