Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 53.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 398 Words, 2,438 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8673/104-1.pdf

Download Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Delaware ( 53.8 kB)


Preview Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv-01321-SLR Document 104 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Delaware limited partnership, )
Plaintiff, g
v. p g Civil Action No. 04—l32l—SLR
TOWN OF ELSMERE, a Delaware i
Municipal corporation, p )
ELLIS BLOMQUIST, EUGENE BONEKER, )
and JOHN GILES, ) Jury Trial Dernanded
Defendants. i
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR·~REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFEN1)AN'1`S’ MOTION TO EXTEND CERTAIN DEADLINES
Plaintiff Elsmere Park Club, LP. (°‘Plaintiff") seeks leave of Court for permission to file
a short Sur—Reply in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines.] Plaintiff
seeks to respond to assertions that Defendants raised for the first time in their Reply (D.I. 101).
In particular:
l. Defendants have now stated in their Reply that they are still today, after the deadline for
submitting expert reports, evaluating the need for an expert. This is a new fact which Plaintiff
seeks to address in its Sur·~Reply.
2. Defendants have now stated in their Reply that they made a calculated decision, at their
own risk, to wait until depositions of Plaintiff s experts to decide if they would retain an expert
Plaintiff seeks the opportunity to address this new fact in its proposed Sur~Reply.
3. Defendants have now indicated in their Reply that they previously asked Plaintiff for an
extension concerning their expert report, but Defendants never requested an extension of time
‘ Defendanre Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines was tiled lsnnary 30, 2006. (DI. 99) Plaintiffs Opposition was
tiled February 2, 2006. (Di. 100) Defenclants’ Reply was tiled February 7, 2006. (D.l. 101)
osu 62424-1 .

Case 1:04-cv—O1321—SLR Document 104 Filed O2/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
prior to January 30, 2006. Plaintiff seeks the opportunity to address this new factual dispute in
its proposed Sur—Reply.
Therefore, Plaintiff respeett`ul.ly seeks leave to tile the Sur-Reply that is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. .
Dated; February 13, 2006 KLEHR, HARRISON, HARVEY, l
BRANZBURG & ELLERS LLP
ey;
Bavid S. Eagle, (Bar No. 3387)
Douglas F. Schleicher, pro hoc vice
Patrick A. Costello (Bar No. 4535)
919 Market Street, Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801-6062
(302) 426-i 189 (Telephone)
(302) 4269193 (Fax)
deagle@l<1ehr.com
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintf
2
osu ceases