STEINBUCH v. CUTLER

Filing 49

MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by JESSICA CUTLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Billips, Matthew)

Download PDF
STEINBUCH v. CUTLER Doc. 49 Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT STEINBUCH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JESSICA CUTLER, ) ) Defendant ) ______________________________________ ) Case No. 1:05-CV-970 (PLF) (JMF) Judge Paul L. Friedman Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT On May 19, 2006, the Court set the discovery period in this case to run from that point until October 16, 2006. On June2, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, on June 13, 2006, filed a Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Stay discovery pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2006, the Court granted the motion to stay discovery. On August 22, 2006, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and lifted the discovery stay, but did not address the effect that the stay would have on the running of deadlines which had either passed in the interim or would soon be reached. One such deadline was Plaintiff's designation of experts; another was Defendant's designation of experts; and a third is the expiration of the discovery period, currently set to expire on October 16, 2006. Defendant has sought discovery from Plaintiff, but it is nearly certain that a motion to compel will be required. See Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, hereto. Defendant has sought discovery from Plaintiff's present employer, but owing to a motion to quash filed by Plaintiff, that discovery was delayed while the Court considered and denied in large part Plaintiff's motion. See Exhibit 4. Defendant has conducted various informal discovery, including contacting and interviewing witnesses and seeking Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 2 of 5 documents outside of the Court's discovery process. Defendant has also sought dates for Plaintiff's deposition, but owing to scheduling conflicts between counsel1, no date has been provided thus far. Defendant has sought the consent of Plaintiff in this Motion to Extend Discovery and has neither been rebuffed nor received agreement. However, given the passage of time and Plaintiff's unwillingness to commit one way or another, Defendant feels that it is necessary to file this Motion without further delay. Therefore, Defendant asks the Court to extend the discovery period for an additional sixty days, from October 16, 2006 until December 15, 2006. Defendant has prepared an Order for the Court's consideration, which is attached hereto. Respectfully submitted this 26th day of September, 2006. /s/ Matthew C. Billips Matthew C. Billips Georgia Bar No. 057110 MILLER & BILLIPS, LLC 730 Peachtree Street, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30308 ph: (404) 969-4101 fax: (404) 969-4141 mbillips@mbalawfirm.com COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JESSICA CUTLER Counsel for Defendant is presently set on a trial calendar for October 10, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Counsel for Plaintiff has indicated the existence of a conflict which extends from the present until October 10, 2006. 1 -2- Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 3 of 5 /s/ John R. Ates John R. Ates, Esq., ALBO & OBLON, LLP 2200 Clarendon Blvd. Suite 1201 Arlington, VA 22201 jra@albo-oblon.com LOCAL COUNSEL -3- Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 4 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT STEINBUCH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JESSICA CUTLER, ) ) Defendant ) ______________________________________ ) Case No. 1:05-CV-970 (PLF) (JMF) Judge Paul L. Friedman Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola ORDER On May 19, 2006, the Court set the discovery period in this case to run from that point until October 16, 2006. On June2, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, on June 13, 2006, filed a Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Stay discovery pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2006, the Court granted the motion to stay discovery. On August 22, 2006, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and lifted the discovery stay, but did not address the effect that the stay would have on the running of deadlines which had either passed in the interim or would soon be reached. Defendant has now filed a motion to extend discovery for a period of sixty days. THEREFORE, having considered Defendant's Motion to Extend Discovery and for good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS that the discovery period in this case shall be extended for a period of sixty days, until December 15, 2006. ___________________________________ HON. JOHN M. FACCIOLA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -4- Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 5 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT STEINBUCH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JESSICA CUTLER, ) ) Defendant ) ______________________________________ ) Case No. 1:05-CV-970 (PLF) Judge Paul L. Friedman CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have on this day served copies of the attached "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY" by filing this Motion using the Court's electronic filing system, which will automatically send an e-mail copy to counsel and by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail with adequate postage thereon, addressed as follows: Jonathan Rosen, Esq. 1645 Lamington Road Bedminster, New Jersey 07921 This 26th day of September, 2006. /s Matthew C. Billips Matthew C. Billips Georgia Bar No. 057110 MILLER & BILLIPS, P.C. 730 Peachtree Street, Suite 750 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 (404) 969-4101 (404) 969-4141 (fax) mbillips@mbalawfirm.com Jonathan Rosen, Esq. 1200 Gulf Blvd., 1506 Clearwater, Florida 33767 -5-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?