Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al

Filing 615

Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Allow for Reconsideration of Motion for Reconsideration of Court Orders Regarding Defendants' Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Edgar R. Nield, # 2 Declaration of Patricia Davis)(MacIvor, Catherine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 07-21221 CIV ALTONAGA/Brown RENEE BLASZKOWSKI, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Class Representatives, vs. MARS INC., et al. Defendants. ______________________________________________/ DECLARATION OF EDGAR R. NIELD FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the states of California and

Colorado and am admitted to practice before the Federal District Courts of Southern and Central California and the Tenth Circuit District Court in Colorado. I am co-counsel for Plaintiff's Jo-Ann Murphy, Cindy Tregoe and Patrica Davis, class action representatives in the above captioned matter. I know the following to be true based upon my personal knowledge or belief and if called upon to do so I could and would competently testify to the following under oath in a court of law. 2. In mid-October 2008 we received written discovery, including

Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and Requests to Produce Documents from Defendant Natura Pet Food Products Inc. directed to Plaintiffs Jo-Ann Murphy, Cindy Tregoe and Patrica Davis. Responses were prepared to that discovery and provided to the defendant's in a timely fashion subsequent to an agreed upon extension. 3. Thereafter Defendant asserted numerous objections to the Plaintiffs'

responses and demanded that the responses be modified and supplemented to address

those objections. After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve Defendant's objections, Defendants filed multiple Motions to Compel to Plaintiffs to provide further responses. Included among the Defendant's Motions was a motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Produciton of Documents it had propounded upon Plaintiff Davis. On behalf of the Plaintiffs, we decided that it was appropriate to file Oppositions thereto. 4. When we received those Motions via email from the Defendant, including

the Motion direct at further responses to the production requests to Ms. Davis, we inadvertently miscalculated and calendared the due dates for Oppositions to those motions to be filed. We believed that the Oppositions would be due no earlier January 28, 2009, in conformance with Federal District Court, Southern District of Florida, Local Rule 7.1 (C) (1 5. I was in the process of preparing the Plaintiff's Oppositions to the

Dependant's Motions when I was surprised to receive, beginning on January 26, 2009, two days before we believed the Oppositions to be due, the Magistrate Judge's rulings on the Defendant's various Motions to Compel, including the Defendant's Motion to Compel further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Davis. This was our first notice that there may have been an error as it related to the calendaring of the due date for Oppositions. 6. Surprised and confused as to why the rulings were being issued before what we still considered the due date of Oppositions, we contacted Magistrate Judge Brown's law clerk by telephone and discovered that we had failed to take into consideration an earlier April 25, 2008 Scheduling Order which had shortened the time to respond to discovery motions. Based thereon and need to assure that the Defendant's Motions were heard on the merits, particularly as it related to the Motion seeking the production of Plaintiff Davis' personal computer, we immediately a Motion for Reconsideration, seeking relief from the error we have made in miscalculating the 2

Opposition due dates and reconsideration of the Defendant's Motions to Compel, taking into consideration Plaintiffs' Oppositions to those motions, which were attached to the Motion for Reconsideration, to assure they were decided upon their merits. 7. As noted, of primary concern is the is the request that Ms. Davis produce

the computers she used to prepare her June 2008 responses to interrogatories propounded by Defendant Mars, Inc. While the request did not indicate why these computers were sought, or wh