Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 87.2 kB
Pages: 3
Date: October 28, 2003
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 701 Words, 4,411 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/19951/40.pdf

Download Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 87.2 kB)


Preview Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
ji Case 3:02-cv-O17%¢t$CFD Document 40 Filed 10/2Rl§OO3 Page 1 of 3 j__mT—_
l
ml Zliil W l-li l Nl
DISTRICT or
=l=>!=>l=*=l==l=>I<>l==!<>k=k*>!<>l=>I<=I==k=1=>k=t<=k=l==l=>k=!<=|==k >k
MICHAEL W. KENNEDY, * l
Plaintiff " rgrgllilogggigglt (CFD)
VS. * I
BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES, N.A. * N
Defendant * OCTOBER 27, 2003 I
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND PLANNING REPORT
The defendant BMW Financial Services NA, LLC ("Defendant") hereby objects to the j
Motion to Amend Planning Report filed by the plaintiff Michael W. Kennedy (“Plaintiff’).
This action, removed to this Court on October 3, 2002, is a dispute over certain alleged
overcharges in a motor vehicle lease. This Court (Droney, J.) approved the Report of Parties J
Planning Meeting on December 9, 2002. That Report entitled the parties to more than tive months I
(until May I5, 2003) to conduct depositions in this matter. On July I4, 2003, this Court (Droney, A
J.) granted a motion to extend that deadline through until September 15, 2003. This four-month
extension was jointly requested by both parties due to the pendency of Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, with the understanding that any further extensions would again have to be negotiated.
QQ, ..__. Q,. ____,, g ,_g;
p_.. g __gg

I r Case 3:02-cv-O17i4§CFD Document 40 Filed 10/2gl,'§003 Page 2 of 3
II Plaintiff now seeks to extend that deadline again, unilaterally and on a mmc pro {unc basis, to an
unspecified date “45 days from the date the court grants [his] motion."
Defendant respectfully objects to Plaintiffs motion as both unwarranted and prejudicial.
Both parties conducted extensive paper discovery during the ample discovery period. For example, I
Defendant provided responses and 99 pages of documents to Plaintiff` s 21 interrogatories and
production requests between January and May 2003. Plaintiff has provided no explanation for his '
failure to conduct the deposition prior to the agreed-upon deadline or in the several months it has
had these materials. I
Also, since Defendant and its relevant employees are located in the state of Ohio, Plaintiff i
correctly observes that deposing Defendant will force it to incur significant transportation and I
.· lodging expenses. Finally, Defendant already intends to file a motion for summary judgment by the
existing deadline for doing so, which is less than three weeks away (November 14, 2003). If
Plaintiff contends that he would like additional discovery in order to oppose that motion, he was
obligated to comply with the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f`), which he
has not. There can be no justification for either the delay or imposition which extending the
deposition period at this late stage -- to an unspecified date in the indefinite future -- would cause.
Finally, in his motion, Plaintiff states that "defendant has not replied" to his request for
consent to his motion to amend the planning report. This is false. Defendant made clear to Plaintiff
l its anticipated opposition to any such motion both by telephone on October 15, 2003 and by letter
dated October 17, 2003.
I I
l

Q -Tit-”- i_m-nl-_______~ `_—_-“4.T?`___`_
l Case 3:02-cv-O17i4BCFD Document 40 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 3 of 3
F ‘ · O
WHEREF ORE, the Defendant respectfully prays that the Plaintiffs motion to amend the
Planning Report be DENIED. f
THE DEFENDANT
BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC
./`.l"`m\
BY¥ ’*~—#~— ‘"‘""‘”""""‘
Sheila A. enton (ct 11436) l
Adam J. Cohen (ct 19877) .
Pullman & Comley, LLC [
850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 l
CERTIFICATION l
l
( This is to certify that a copy hereof was mailed, postage prepaid, on the date hereon to each l
attorney of record and to all pro se parties of record as follows:
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Bernard T. Kennedy, Esq. `
49 Rose Street )
Branford, CT 06405
Telephone: (203) 481-1322
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Michael W. Kennedy, Esq.
101 W. Main Street
Branford, CT 06405
Telephone: (203) 481-4040 xq,.»-fg
I
ll r,1·’\·~..................·»--—-···~··’·‘*"""**"*'•
Adam J. Cohen, Esq.
BPRT/56275.5/AJC/495902vi I
I
l
-3- 3 l
i