Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv—00047-GIVIS Document 30 Filed 1 1/30/2005 Page 1 of 2
COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP
?m.“““W‘£.S§i§2&%§82a%991’ COUNSEMRSAMW .........°1’."F.§°.......
_.. 330 WEST 42"" STREIET MANLIO DIPRETA
BRUCE H. SHVION NEW YORK, N.YL 10036-69*76 R
ROBERT S. SAVELSON R. ELIZABETH O,LEARY
§;`E$ ;IB‘;EA‘;;’E (212) 563-4100 EYAD ASAE
KEITH E_ SECULAR TELECOPIER (212) 695-5436 1c:;l;;I;&·(i`;i’;TRODDI
PETER HERMAN 01:1ANA VIGLIOTTI
RICHARD M· SEETZER DAVID R. HooK*
JAMES I" EE`lSEY* WRITER'S DIRECT D1A1. AVI BERNS'1‘EIN*
JAM R- RACHELSON 212·356·0250 zAeHAEY N. LEEDS
RABEHE CECCOTEEP MOLLY BROOKS
SUSAN DAvIS* SUZANNE E. D’AMA*1·0**
MICHAEII L. WVINSTONE NEW JERSEY OFFICE
}`§§E”,‘;°;,s§;‘§,.‘j*_N,,E“’E‘* November 30,2005 206 oLAEEMom mm
PETER D. DEC}HARA 1g;’§;°;f)‘gf§;)%J‘ 07042
LISA M° GO1`@:z* * ALSO ADNIITTED 1N'NJ 1
BRUCE S. LEVINE ** AD1v11·1·1·ED EN c·1· ONLY
JAMES R. GRISI* 1
1
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Judge
United States District Court 1
District of Delaware
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Bldg
844 North King Street 1
Wilmington, DE 19801-3519 I
Re: Reinbold v. NALC Branch 1977, Case No. 04-342 (D. Del.) 1
Reinbold v. USPS and Branch 191, Case No. 05-047 {D. Del.)
Dear Judge Sleet: J
As you know, this firm represents the National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch .
1977 and Branch 191 (the "Union Defendants") in the above-captioned actions. I write to ‘
reiterate the Union Defendants’ request that the November 30, 2005 summary judgment deadline
be adjourned tmtil a ruling is made on the Union Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss and to
inform the Court that to date, the Union Defendants still have not received any substantive
response to their June 29, 2005 discovery requests.
Plaintiff originally filed the instant actions in the Delaware Court of Common Pleas
on April 22, 2004 in a single Complaint brought against both Branch 191 and Branch 1977. On
May 27, 2004, Branch 1977 removed the action (Case No. 04-342) to federal court. Thereafter,
on January 27, 2005, the action was dismissed as to Branch 191 due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve 1
the summons and complaint on the Branch. Plaintiff then brought a new action (Case No. 05- .
047) in this Court against Branch 191 on January 28, 2005 and added the Postal Service as a 1
defendant. A
Following the June 23, 2005 initial status conference, the Union Defendants served A
initial disclosures, document requests and interrogatories on plaintiff on June 29, 2005. Because
0O083282.DOC.l Z

Case 1 :05-cv—00047-GIVIS Document 30 Filed 1 1/30/2005 Page 2 of 2 `
COHEN, WEISS AND SDMION LLP
Judge Gregory M. Sleet
November 30, 2005
Page 2
the Union Defendants did not receive a response to the discovery requests, on both August 26,
2005 and September 2, 2005, I telephoned Plaintiff to discuss his failure to respond, but did not
reach Plaintiff. On September 2, 2005, I left a message on Plaintiffs answering machine
indicating that if Plaintiffs responses were not received by September 6, 2005, the Union
Defendants would move to compel. I also wrote to Plaintiff, memorializing the September 2,
2005 telephone message. Despite these efforts, Plaintiff failed to respond.
Because the Union Defendants never received responses to the discovery requests, on
November 2, 2005, the Union Defendants moved to dismiss the actions for lack of prosecution. _
Based on the same reasons, the Postal Service filed a similar motion. Thereafter, on November
_ 17, 2005, Plaintiff filed a response to the motions to dismiss in which he indicated that he sent _
his discovery responses via certified mail to my office on July 26, 2005. ‘
As detailed in the Union Defendants’ reply filed in further support of the motion to I
dismiss on November 22, 2005, I never received any response to the discovery requests, despite
multiple attempts to contact plaintiff. On November 18, 2005 Plaintiff finally returned my l
telephone calls and stated that he "would try" to send me the correspondence he referred to in his
response to the motions to dismiss by Monday November 21, 2005. _
To date, the Union Defendants have not received any response to their discovery j
requests. Accordingly, the Union Defendants respectfully request, as indicated in the November
2, 2005 motion to dismiss which is pending before the Court, that this Court adjourn the
November 30, 2005, summary judgment deadline tmtil a ruling is made on the motion to dismiss. .
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. n
Very truly yours, I I
Oriana Vigliotti
OV:sl ‘
cc: Brian Reinbold p.
Patricia Hannigan, Esq. ~