Gainor v. Sidley, Austin, Brow
Filing
104
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply In Support of Their Motions to Dismiss and Respond to Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel by Arthur Andersen, LLP, Michael S. Marx, P. Anthony Nissley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Austin, Michael)
Gainor v. Sidley, Austin, Brow
Doc. 104
Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM
Document 104
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2007
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division Case No. 06-21748 CIV-MARTINEZ/BANDSTRA
MARK J. GAINOR and ELYSE GAINOR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, et al.
Defendants.
/
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP'S, MARX'S, AND NISSLEY'S AGREED MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL
Defendants Arhur Andersen LLP, Michael S. Marx, and P. Anthony Nissley
(collectively "Andersen") move the Cour, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), for an enlargement of
time through and including August 8, 2007 to file reply memoranda in support of Arthur
Andersen's, Marx's, and Nissley's individual Motions to Dismiss and also respond to Plaintiffs'
two motions to compeL. Plaintiffs, through counsel, have granted their agreement to this Motion.
As grounds for this Motion, Andersen states:
1. On July 11, 2007, Plaintiffs fied Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition
to Defendant Arthur Andersen LLP's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendant Mar's Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendant Nissley's Motion to Dismiss:
2. Also on July 11, 2007, Plaintiffs fied Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants,
Arhur Andersen and Merril Lynch, to Produce Initial Disclosures in Compliance with Rule
26(a) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (a) Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Request for
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM
Document 104
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2007
Page 2 of 4
Production of Documents to Defendants Arhur Andersen, Mar and Nissley and (b) Deposition
Dates for Mar and Nissley (collectively "Motions to Compel").
3. Pursuant to the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Defendant Arthur Andersen, LLP's Motion to Dismiss, and for Extension of Time
for Defendants Arhur Andersen, LLP and Michael S. Marx and P. Anthony Nissley to File Their
Reply Memoranda, Andersen's reply memoranda are due on July 25,2007.
4. Pursuant to Pacer's Docket Report, Andersen's responses to Plaintiffs' Motions to
Compel are also due July 25, 2007.
5. Given the volume of briefing and other scheduling issues, counsel for Andersen
needs additional time to submit its reply memoranda in support of its three motions to dismiss as
well as respond to Plaintiffs' Motions to CompeL.
6. Counsel for Andersen has conferred with Plaintiffs' counseL. Plaintiffs' counsel
has graciously agreed to the enlargement of time, through and including August 8, 2007 for
Andersen to serve its reply memoranda and to respond to Plaintiffs' Motions to CompeL.
With this Motion, undersigned counsel has provided the Court with a proposed order
granting the requested enlargement of time.
2
Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM
Document 104
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2007
Page 3 of 4
WHEREFORE, Andersen respectfully requests that this Cour enter an Order granting
this Agreed Motion for Additional Time to File Replies in Support of Andersen's Motions to
Dismiss and Respond to Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel through and including August 8, 2007.
McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
By: sl: Michael G. Austin
Michael G. Austin (FBN 0457205)
E-mail: maustinêmwe.com
201 South Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2200
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel: (305) 347-6511; Fax: (305) 347-6500
Of counsel:
Douglas E. Whitney Jocelyn D. Francoeur
McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
227 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Ilinois 60606
(312) 372-2000 (312) 984-7700 FAX
E-Mail: dwhitneyêmwe.com jfrancoeurêmwe.com
Counsel for Arthur Andersen, LLP, Michael S. Marx and P. Anthony Nissley
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 18,2007, I electronically fied the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which automatically sends an electronic notification
to CM/ECF participants. The foregoing document was also served on those counselor parties
who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing identified on the
attached Service List via first-class U.S. MaiL.
sl Michael G. Austin
Michael G. Austin
3
Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM
Document 104
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2007
Page 4 of 4
SERVICE LIST
Richard Benjamin Wilkes Richard W. Candelora
Richard Benjamin Wilkes, P.A. Attorneys at Law
Katherine Warthen Ezell
600 S. Magnolia Ave, Suite 200
Tampa, Florida 33606
813-254-6060
Fax: 813-254-6088
PODHURST ORSECK JOSEFSBERG, ET AL. 25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 City National Ban Bldg. Miami, Florida 33130-1780 305-358-2800
Fax: 305-358-2382
rwilkeslarbwilkes.com
Attorneys for Plaintif
KEzelllapodhurst.com
Attorneys for Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP
Jonathan E. Altman Aaron M. May Gabriel P. Sanchez
Brad D. Brian
Stephen J. Anderson ANDERSON DAILEY LLP
2002 Sumit Blvd., Suite 1250
Atlanta, Georgia 30319
404442 1800
Fax: 404 442 1820
Julie Cantor Lisa Demsky
Richard Drooyan
Andersonlaandersondailev.com
Attorney for Marc C. Klopfenstein
RJ. Ruble
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 613-683-9100
Fax: 613-683-3702
151 7 Avalon Square Glen Cover, New York 11542
J onathan.altmanlamto.com Aaron.mavlamto.com Gabriel.sanchezlamto.com
Attorneys for Sidley Austin LLP
Coren Harris Stem
Bennett Falk
Richard A. Morgan Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.c.
100 S.E. Second Street
Bressler, Amery & Ross P.c.
2801 S.W. 149th Ave.
Miramar, Florida 33027 954-499-7979
Miami, Florida 33131 305-347-4080
Fax 305-347-4089
csternlabressler.com
Attorneys for Merril Lynch & Co., R.J Ruble
Richard.more:anlabipc.com
Attorneys for Mark C. Klopfenstein
MIA 324677-1.065784.0026
4
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?