Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00—cv—00339-RNC Document 144 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:00-cv—00339-RNC Document 143 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
T UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
kitiiii**i**·i****·k*Ir•k·I·*i·****i******·h·*******
THOMAS O'CONNOR * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:00CV339 (RNC)
Plaintiff, :
V. *
LYNNE B. PIERSON, et al. *
Defendants. *
* SEPTEMBER 18, 2006
i**i**·A•***•k**i·i·****·k****·k******************
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiff requests until September 26, 2006 to respond to the Defendants
Motion for Summary Judgment. Currently the deadline is September 18, 2006.
This time is needed because of the trial schedule of the plaintiffs attorney, Leon
M. Rosenblatt. Attorney Rosenblatt was in state court picking a jury from September
_ 12, 2006 through September 15, 2006 in Rice v. Meriden Housing Authorigg, etal.,
Docket No.: CV-03-04795568. Evidence in the Rice trial began today and will continue
T6 *`~» Pi for at least one week. The plaintiffs attorney anticipated being able to complete the
·§ . D response to the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment sooner because he did not
O
O >; believe the Rice trial was going to start until the end of this week. Due to this trial, the
U1 C'.
_ EP plaintiff requests one additional week to finish the response to the defendants' Motion
'U rd
,2 -5 for Summary Judgment.
gf zi This is the plaintiffs second motion for extension of time.
i.>
· § The defendants attorney, Michael J. Rose, was contacted re ardin his position
g Q Q
c>
Q, ¤¤ on this motion, but as of the signing of this motion, Attorney Rose has not indicated his
2; position.
t-i
(I)
i
LJ
O4
CD __ ..
:0 W -