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

Case 3:00-cv-01621-AWT

Document 254

Filed 10/28/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Russell Carlson, etal
v.

Xerox Corp., et al. MASTER CASE Florida State Board of Admin., et al.
v.

Xerox Corp., et al. MEMBER CASE.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

3:00-CV-1621 (AWT)

3:02-CV-1303 (AWT) October 28,2005

MOTION ON CONSENT TO ESTABLISH A BRIEFING SCHEDULE Defendants Xerox Corporation ("Xerox"), Paul A. Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril, Gregory Tayler and Philip Fishbach (the "Individual Defendants", and with Xerox, the "Xerox Defendants") hereby move, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and as contemplated by the Stipulation and Order dated July 26,2005, as granted and so ordered on September 7, 2005, to establish a briefing schedule for the Xerox Defendants to move to dismiss claims based on issues uniquely related to the plaintiffs in Florida State Bd. of Admin., et al.. v. Xerox Corp.. et al. ("FSB"). To accommodate this briefing schedule, the Xerox Defendants also move for an extension of time to answer the factual allegations uniquely presented in the Amended Complaint in FSB ("Complaint"), as contemplated by and in accordance with the Stipulation and Order dated July 25,2005, as granted and so ordered on September 7,2005. The Xerox Defendants submit that there is good cause for the briefing schedule and extension agreed upon by the parties, as a motion to dismiss may serve to narrow the issues in the case and conserve judicial resources. The stipulated briefing schedule proposed by the NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 3:00-cv-01621-AWT

Document 254

Filed 10/28/2005

Page 2 of 3

parties will allow counsel adequately to address unique legal claims presented in the Complaint. The parties agree that the filing of any motion pursuant to the proposed briefing schedule should not stay discovery in FSB or in Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corp.. et al. (No. 3:00-CV-1621) (AWT) ("Carlson"). The Xerox Defendants previously have sought and obtained an extension of time to answer the factual allegations uniquely presented in the Complaint within the time agreed to by the parties in Carlson (currently October 31, 2005) for the Xerox Defendants to file their Answer to the Third Consolidated Amended Complaint in that action. This motion raises no issues of law, and therefore a separate memorandum of law will not be submitted. Counsel for Xerox Defendants has inquired of counsel for plaintiffs concerning this motion. Plaintiffs consent to this motion, as evidenced in the accompanying Stipulation. Requested Relief The Xerox Defendants respectfully request that the Stipulation and Order dated October 28, 2005, be so ordered, thereby establishing the requested briefing schedule and extending the Xerox Defendants' time to answer the factual allegations unique to the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, DEFENDANT XEROX CORPORATION
By

R. Chester (it 03177) Sandra C. Goldstein (ct 24019) Karin A. DeMasi (phv0584) Members of the Firm CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 (212)474-1000
-2-

Case 3:00-cv-01621-AWT

Document 254

Filed 10/28/2005

Page 3 of 3

DEFENDANTS PHILIP FISHBACH, G. RICHARD THOMAN, AND ANNE MULCAHY
By ~

Thomas D. Goldberg (ct 04386) DAY, BERRY & HOWARD LLP One Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901 (203) 977-7300 DEFENDANTS PAUL A. ALLAIRE, BARRY D. ROMERIL, AND GREGORY TAYLER
By

fa. Andrew N. Vollmer (ct 23728) Heather A. Jones (ct 24194) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE and DORR LLP 2445 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 663-6000

Alfred U. Pavlis (ct 08603) DALY & PAVLIS, LLC 107 John Street Southport, CT 06490 (203) 255-6700 Of counsel: Ivy Thomas McKinney (ct 09351) Xerox Corporation 800 Long Ridge Road Stamford, CT 06904 (203) 968-3000 Attorney for Xerox Corporation

-3-