Gainor v. Sidley, Austin, Brow

Filing 143

Agreed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply 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 by Arthur Andersen, LLP, Michael S. Marx, P. Anthony Nissley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Austin, Michael)

Download PDF
Gainor v. Sidley, Austin, Brow Doc. 143 Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2007 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 Arthur Andersen LLP, Michael S. Marx, and P. Anthony Nissley (collectively "Andersen") move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), for an enlargement of time through and including August 22, 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 filed Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Arthur Andersen LLP's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Marx'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 filed Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants, Arthur Andersen and Merrill 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 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 4 Production of Documents to Defendants Arthur Andersen, Marx and Nissley and (b) Deposition Dates for Marx and Nissley (collectively "Motions to Compel"). 3. Pursuant to the Order Granting Defendant 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 entered on July 26, 2007, Andersen's reply memoranda and responses to Plaintiff's Motions to Compel are due on August 8, 2007. 4. Due to intervening circumstances and scheduling issues, counsel for Andersen is requesting additional time to submit its reply memoranda in support of its three motions to dismiss as well as respond to Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel. 5. Counsel for Andersen has conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel has graciously agreed to the enlargement of time, through and including August 22, 2007 for Andersen to respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. With this Motion, undersigned counsel has provided the Court with a proposed order granting the requested enlargement of time. WHEREFORE, Andersen respectfully requests that this Court 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 22, 2007. McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP By: s/: Michael G. Austin Michael G. Austin (FBN 0457205) E-mail: maustin@mwe.com 201 South Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel: (305) 347-6511 Fax: (305) 347-6500 2 Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2007 Page 3 of 4 Douglas E. Whitney Jocelyn D. Francoeur McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: (312) 372-2000 Fax: (312) 984-7700 E-Mail: dwhitney@mwe.com jfrancoeur@mwe.com Counsel for Arthur Andersen, LLP, Michael S. Marx and P. Anthony Nissley CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 8, 2007, I electronically filed 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 counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing identified on the attached Service List via first-class U.S. Mail. ________s/ Michael G. Austin______ Michael G. Austin 3 Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2007 Page 4 of 4 SERVICE LIST Richard Benjamin Wilkes Richard W. Candelora Richard Benjamin Wilkes, P.A. Attorneys at Law 600 S. Magnolia Ave, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33606 813-254-6060 Fax: 813-254-6088 rwilkes@rbwilkes.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Jonathan E. Altman Aaron M. May Gabriel P. Sanchez Brad D. Brian Julie Cantor Lisa Demsky Richard Drooyan MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 613-683-9100 Fax: 613-683-3702 Jonathan.altman@mto.com Aaron.may@mto.com Gabriel.sanchez@mto.com Attorneys for Sidley Austin LLP Coren Harris Stern Bennett Falk Bressler, Amery & Ross P.C. 2801 S.W. 149th Ave. Miramar, Florida 33027 954-499-7979 cstern@bressler.com Attorneys for Merrill Lynch & Co., R.J. Ruble Katherine Warthen Ezell PODHURST ORSECK JOSEFSBERG, ET AL. 25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 City National Bank Bldg. Miami, Florida 33130-1780 305-358-2800 Fax: 305-358-2382 KEzell@podhurst.com Attorneys for Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP Stephen J. Anderson ANDERSON DAILEY LLP 2002 Summit Blvd., Suite 1250 Atlanta, Georgia 30319 404 442 1800 Fax: 404 442 1820 Anderson@andersondailey.com Attorney for Marc C. Klopfenstein R.J. Ruble 1517 Avalon Square Glen Cover, New York 11542 Richard A. Morgan Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C. 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, Florida 33131 305-347-4080 Fax 305-347-4089 Richard.morgan@bipc.com Attorneys for Mark C. Klopfenstein MIA 325625-1.065784.0026 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?