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

IAD. ,....r....._..._.. _. ......;.L...... _, , _
I · » · _ Case 3:02-cv-02132-AWT Document 32 Filed 05/1 Q/2004 Page 1 of 1 I
[ E O C) . , 1
1 O g\Q_,,a113Q\ vn Mitt m a;
UNITED STATES DISTRICT m
T5 DISTRICT OF CONNECT C " I I
x P ‘
1 g Ror sAsrRoM AND I 2111111 MAY — 5 A IU= 35
I S ROBERT KALMAN : CIVIL ACTION NO.
O P·'¤i*’¢¢W 2 D0i¤k$tl0¤i>$3`¤B2@it”0GU1Jil`€1i*i T)(DFM)I
I M ; HARIFORD. CII I I
jj v. :
I in I
I '"* JAMES CASSIDY, PH.D., JD., AND :
I GARRELL MULLANEY, C.E.O. :
I qi Defendants : MAY 5, 2004
2
N E
g DEFENDANTS’ THIRD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
U OF TIME TO FILE THEIER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I
“" 1
§* Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 7(b), the defendants, James Cassidy, I
sf}
Q Ph.D., J .D., and Garrell Mullaney, C.E.O., move for an enlargement of time to tile their motion E
o
Lt.; YI"
Pg § for summary judgment. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently due on I
M `-.
O _.`§L__ May 10, 2004. I
gi LO
~3 This Motion has become necessary because to date the defendants have not received the I
r-1
IQ S plaintiffs responses to their discovery request, Defendunts’ First Set Of Interrogatories And
(U " .
·o .
ff Q - Rguest For Production Of Documents T 0 Plaintmfs which was mailed to them on August 13,
,.4 Li-I · l•—
is ·-— cr:.
4,% Q Q ZQQ3. Qméaccordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37, counsel for the defendants
>* LU hgd at ed to resolve this issue without `udicial intervention. The defendants were not able to
it ..1 W " J
.. mc}?
E E`; rgolvéglgew issue of the outstanding discovery without judicial intervention and, therefore, were
_ 'I E aaa;
§ gceckrbpljfrled a Motion for Order asking the court to either compel the plaintiffs to respond to
ig ci Defendants First Set Of Interrogatories And Request For Production Of Documents To I
U']
. S K; Pluinti s or to dismiss the p1aintiffs’ amended complaint.
B
§ § On February ll, 2004, the Court, (Martinez, J.) issued an Order granting in part and I
o or
E
§ é denying in part, defendants’ Motion for Order. The Order stated in pertinent part: I
. . I
Q I3 I
ta
er :1
§ `Q
no i gi I
I Y D-? "T" "‘”‘“ “ ii‘‘i 0 ee ‘i iii f i f i·r if
_,,;__r_;_ ;__M p___pp p lllppp
_,__ _, ____;T -777;;* lr-rrr-_-VNU V