Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 81.0 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 12, 2003
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 738 Words, 4,167 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/20555/30.pdf

Download Response - District Court of Connecticut ( 81.0 kB)


Preview Response - District Court of Connecticut
{. _ Case 3: 2-cv-0210CI=?LG Document 30 Filed 12/16/5003 Page 1 of 4
l i I
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -·
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT mm DEC I I p LF lu I
I AJUDU IS VIAILA ADAMU, ET AL : U
I v. E NO. 02C\/2104 (CLC)
I PF IZIER I C December 11, 2003
I
DEFENDANT·s OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR
PERMISSION TO FILE A SURREPLY MEMORANDUM I
Plai1tiffs have moved for permission to file a surreply in opposition to
defendant °fizer's Motion to Transfer, requesting until January 7, 2004 to do so. I
Defendant Pfizer, Inc. objects to this request for two reasons.
Firs , plaintiffs have not articulated a sufficient reason to warrant the filing
of such a brief. The Local Rules contemplate that an opening brief, an opposition I
brief, and reply brief will be filed on a disputed question of law. §@ Local Rule I
7. In this case, Pfizer filed its motion and opening brief on October 28, 2003.
Plaintiffs -- after obtaining an extension of time, to which defendant consented -— I
filed theirt Iirty—six page opposition on November 26, 2003. Pfizer's reply brief I
was then ti nely filed on December 8, 2003. Pfizer's reply adhered to the t
strictures of Local Rule 7(d), in that it was "strictly confined to matters raised by I
the respon sive brief," contained "references to the pages of the responsive brief
I
l

V ’ Case 3: [email protected] Document 30 Filed 12/1 {@003 Page 2 of 4
\ -
l
J to which r aply [was] being made," and was limited to ten pages. The reply \
introduce no new factual or legal arguments. [
( Pla ntiffs state that they "would like to file a surreply because of the l
* importanc a and potential affect [sic] of the Motion to Transfer." But plaintiffs fail l
I to articulate how such a brief will assist the Court in deciding the motion, or why l
l
{ such a bri ef is necessary or appropriate given the limited scope of Pfizer's reply. *
Moreover, the legal issue involved, a discretionary transfer under 28 U.S.C. i
§‘I404(a), s hardly unique, has already been fully briefed, and will not in any \
event determine the merits of the case. i
Secmzl, the constraints imposed by the proceedings now pending in the
Southern District of New York militate against allowing a surreply. Earlier this \
week, Jud ie Pauley scheduled a status conference in the related Abduliahi case
on Februa y 13, 2004 to determine the future course of proceedings. Judicial Y
economy rould be served if the Court decided the motion sufficiently in advance
of the Feb uary 13"” conference so that, if the case is transferred, pIaintiffs'
counsel in this case could participate in the conference before Judge Pauley. l
The filing fan unnecessary surreply will simply delay the disposition of this i
motion, an l if the transfer were to occur after the status conference, perhaps
make it more difficult for Judge Pauley to coordinate the two cases.
l

l l
I l · Case 3: 2-cv-021031-QBLG Document 30 Filed 12/@@003 Page 3 of 4 I
l
l
I I
Def andant is in no way unsympathetic to |\/lr. A|tschuIer's medical problem. l
lf, for sxa iple, this request were for a reasonable extension of an existing I
deadline, rather than to file an unnecessary surreply, defendant would not object. I
For these reasons, pIaintiffs' request for leave to file a surreply should be =
denied. I
Edward R. Scofield (ct00455) I
Zeldes, Needle & Cooper, P.C.
1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 500
Bridgeport, CT 06604
(203) 333-9441 I
Fax: (203) 333-1489 =
e-mail: [email protected] I
Steven Glicksteln (ct 15725) E
James D. Herschlein (ct 24326) l
Kaye Scholar LLP
425 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022 I
(212) 836-8000 ·
Attorneys for Defendant I
l
3 I

I
N »’ · Case 3: [email protected];§ELG Document 30 Filed 12/1{1)7%OO3 Page 4 of 4
I I
I
N CERTIFICATION
I Thi . is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent via facsimile N
transmissi an and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this date, to: N
Richard P. Altschuier, Esq. I
Altschuier & Altschuler N
509 Campbeil Ave. ,
P.O. Box 606 ‘
West Haven, CT 06516 N
Dat ad at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 1‘I"‘ day of December, 2003.
Edward R. Scofield


I
I
I
i