Free Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

E .,M.l.-...s...-"...;_. —·———-——~·-~·—·~————--—-————-—-—— ··-·-- · j
i I Case 3:03-cv-00712-WWE Document 72 Filed 08/@2004 Page 1 of 1 {
- o l
rv *
A Flr l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ei gg
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT l
ZHHUAUB —2 ID |:g·} I
Q GERTRUDE BAYONNE, : I =
I = ‘ii§i,?;§.ER*@.ICCW
; Plaintiff, : "` ” J 0}* CP-`*~=
I I .
v. : Docket No. 3:03 CV 0712 (WWE)
A PITNEY BOWES INC., : V
. P, Defendant. E Jniy 29, 2004
i '
I 0
. . UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SC_,I-IEDULING ORDER
I F
Pursuant to Local Rule 9(b), Defendant Pitney Bowes Inc. moves to modify the
an
5 ° :eheduling order applicable to this matter. The requested modification seeks to extend by
O N - ··~`
N l ninety days the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. In support of this request,
I ’M d`
"{ T )efendant avers as follows:
`En
`I
_l`;'__ 1. Plaintiff consents to the proposed modification;
Z>·• CI
E 2. This is Defendant's second request to modify the scheduling order. The first
:2 E E;
_ ZE E gk cquest sought only to clarify an oversight created when Plaintiff sought to extend the
Q 5 i E W iscovery deadline but failed to request an extension of the dispositive motion deadline. As a
O E :+2 C
_§_ § QQ 5,, :sult,_"’§lie scheduling order permitted the deadline for dispositive motions to expire prior to
é E é 3 sir
E3.e clgse ofgqiggsovery;
, l br l»-Q
M ‘—f’3. he present request to modify the scheduling order is necessary to allow the
F-- ..
. "“““ LD Ubi-I-i
&§,parti<§° complete discovery and prepare for the filing of dispositive motions in a
i orde;`T;/ and} efficient manner. In addition, the undersigned attorney just recently filed an
J
i appearance in this matter on July 26, 2004 and is presently in the process of obtaining and
I
N reviewing the file on this matter. Additional time is needed in order to allow Defendant's new
sTM_lvs•ss1_1.d0erJsTRt2TT0N