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

Case 1 :04-cv-00911-GIVIS Document 106 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 1 of 4
CASARINO, CHRISTMAN & SHALK, P .A.
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
CONECTIV BUILDING
soo NORTH KING STREET
STEPHEN I=. eAsARINo
CONN M- SHA'-K SU ITE 200 REPLY TO 0uR MAILING ADDRESS:
BETH H. CHRISTMAN P.O, BOX 1276 p_0_ BQX 1275
,'i§;‘Q;$HM,,F*3g§§M WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899 w·LM·~9T¤~» DE 99999
THOMAS I=. LEEF _
h1fI.i~l_IifIffi9ivIiERf>)c·?Ii:Ir§fnlf¤NToaAN (302) 594**500
JOHN A. MACCONI, JR. FAX: (302) 594,4509
February l, 2006
murrmg LJ E_.@,,E...l_J1lL.ffi€.,i|*1l1,
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet T FB __ 1 mm g -
United States District Court ~ gl 1 ; l
District of Delaware i‘ · TT A A
U.S. Courthouse E
844 King Street U_ *` 1
Lvckbvx 19 01%.*,%-?fi 7 - I
Wilmington, DE 19801 4
RE: Kopacz v. Swett & DRBA
No. 04-911 GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
As a courtesy to plaintiffs counsel due to his inability to reach his local counsel, l am
enclosing a hard copy of plaintiffs motion to extend trial time. By providing this document to the
Court, defendant Swett takes no position at this time and specifically reserves his right to object once
this document is properly filed with the Court.
iwctfuwy suwitted,
\
Donald M. Ransom, Esq.
Del Bar ld. No. 2626
Attorney for Defendant
Craig Swett
cc: Clerk of Court (By Hand)
E. Alfred Smith, Esq. (Fax: 215-569-8606)
Carmella Keener, Esq. (Fax: 658-7567)
James Woods, Esq. (Fax: 235-5770)
M. Elisa Reeves, Esq. (Fax: 215-576-8695)

I n Case 1 :04-cv-00911-GQIVIS Document 106 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 2 of 4
‘ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
E JAN KOPACZ and CATHY KOPACZ, : C.A. N0. 04-911 GMS
. - if Plaintiffs, Jury Trial Demanded
S! L 2
DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY
AUTHORITY, and CRAIG SWETT, :
_ Defendants.
IAN KOPACZ, C.A. No. 04-1281 GMS
Plaintiff
` V.
DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY
· ` AUTHORITY, :
ra Defendant. : i
Plaintiffs Objection to the Court°s Limitation of
J Trial Time and Motion to Enlarge the Plaintiff s Time
I At the conclusion of the Pre-Trial Conference the Court repeated its Order limiting the
trial to 3 days and then further ordered that each party is to have 5 % hours to present its case. The
made this ruling based on its belief that the trial involves an accident which occurred on the
` I of the ferry.
l Plaintiff objects to the trial limitation and the 5 % hour limitation and believes it will

Case 1 :(l4-cv-OO911eGIV|§» Document 106 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 3 of 4
L _ severely prejudice the presentation of plaintiff’ s case for the following reasons:
_- l. Although the origin of this claim is an accident that occurred on the car
in ` jg deck, there are really three lawsuits involved: Plaintiff has a claim against DRBA
i based on The Jones Act and the unseaworthiness of the vessel and also against the
driver ofthe car based on negligence under the general maritime law. Appearing
against the plaintiff will be at least 4 witnesses from DRBA and 4 on behalf of
4 defendant Swett, 3 of whom have already been deposed. Plaintiff believes his
l cross—examination of these three witnesses is probably l % hours. Plaintiff has
I L q already taken the trial deposition of a treating doctor, and this lasted probably one
. e hour. These depositions were all taken before the 5 V2 hour limitation was
. n imposed. Plaintiff will shortly take the trial deposition of another treating
_ doctor, and the direct examination will probably last 45 minutes at least.
i Facing the trial, plaintiff has very little time left to present his case.
Plaintiff plans to move as rapidly as he can, but it appears that it will be impossible
5 to present his case within the time allotted.
_ j _ The third lawsuit is against DRBA for its failure to pay maintenance and
; cure and the consequences suffered by plaintiff as a result. This involves witnesses
` . g and testimony completely unrelated to the accident on the car deck, and the
presentation of testimony will probably take at least two hours.
. 2. The allocation of equal time to each of the three parties is also severely
prejudicial to plaintiff Plaintiff has to satisfy his burden against each of the two
Defendants, and the Defendants are presenting a common medical defense. The
Court allowed plaintiff 3 peremptory strikes and each of the defendants was

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS Document 106 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 4 of 4
allowed 1 %, so plaintiff believes the allocation of time should be divided in the
_ , same way.
i . i Plaintiff will present his case as expeditiously as possible and does not plan to waste the
.Cou1t’s time with extraneous testimony. However, the limitation is too severe and is prejudicial
to plaintiff so plaintiff moves the Court to grant him an additional 5 % hours, and plaintiff assures
· the Count he will ny his best not to use all of the additional time.
Resp eotfully,
l J James J. Woods
E. Alfred Smith
, Attomeys for Plaintiff
P Date:
l