Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

Filing 161

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for leave to file excess pages (second) (Novack, Stephen)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID GROCHOCINSKI, not individually
but solely in his capacity as the Chapter 7
Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of
CMGT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW LLP
and RONALD B. GIVEN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 06 C 5486
Judge Virginia M. Kendall

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZED REPLY
Defendants Mayer Brown LLP and Ronald B. Given (together, the “Defendants”), by
their attorneys, Novack and Macey LLP, hereby move for leave to file a reply memorandum of
up to 25 pages. In support of their motion, Defendants state as follows:
1.

By order dated March 31, 2009, this Court ordered that Defendants file their

dispositive motion on their “unclean hands” defenses by June 1, 2009, that Plaintiff file his
response thereto by June 29, 2009, and that Defendants file their reply by July 20, 2009.
Defendants timely filed their motion on May 29, 2009.
2.

On June 19, 2009, Plaintiff David Grochocinski (“Plaintiff”) sought leave to file

an oversize response memorandum. Defendants did not object, and Plaintiff’s motion was
granted by this Court’s order dated June 23, 2009.
3.

Plaintiff’s responsive memorandum is 30 pages long, and his Local Rule

56.1(b)(3)(c) Statement contains over 70 paragraphs. As part of his response, Plaintiff also

submitted over 100 new exhibits. Defendants do not contend that any of these items exceed the
limitations set by the Court, as they were in compliance with this Court’s order.
4.

On July 17, 2009, Defendants filed a motion seeking leave to file a reply brief of

up to 25 pages and for an extension of time to file their reply brief -- until August 19, 2009 (the
“First Motion”). Plaintiff did not oppose the requested extension of up to 25 pages. However,
because the Court was out of the country from July 20, 2009 until August 3, 2009 (the day
Defendants’ reply was due), Defendants amended the First Motion to reduce the number of
pages sought for the reply to 20 pages (the “Amended Motion”). The Amended Motion was
granted by the Court on July 20, 2009.
5.

Defendants continue to believe that they cannot fully and properly respond to the

matters set forth in Plaintiff’s 30-page response brief and the new facts and exhibits in less than
25 pages, and therefore respectfully request leave to file a reply up to 25 pages.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant Defendants leave to
file a reply memorandum of up to 25 pages, and that it grant Defendants such other and further
relief as is appropriate.
Respectfully submitted by,
MAYER BROWN LLP and RONALD B. GIVEN

By:

Stephen Novack
Mitchell L. Marinello
Steven J. Ciszewski
NOVACK AND MACEY LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
[phone]
Doc. #301721

/s/ Stephen Novack
One Of Their Attorneys

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Stephen Novack, an attorney, hereby certifies that he caused a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Defendants’ Second Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Oversized Reply to be
served through the ECF system upon the following:
Edward T. Joyce
Arthur W. Aufmann
Robert D. Carroll
Edward T. Joyce & Assoc., P.C.
11 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
on this 4th day of August, 2009.

/s/ Stephen Novack