Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

Filing 216

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to file response/reply (Morgans, David)

12629.A6

DEM/so

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

RESPONDENT DAVID GROCHOCINSKI’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Respondent David Grochocinski, by his attorney, David E. Morgans, moves this
court, pursuant to LR 78.3, for an extension of time, to March 14, 2011, within which to file
his response to defendants’ motion for sanctions. In support of this motion, respondent
states the following:
1.

Following the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants and against

plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, defendants brought a motion for sanctions against
respondent Grochocinski and his attorney, Edward T. Joyce.
2.

Grochocinski brought a motion to dismiss the motion for sanctions for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, and, while that motion was pending, the court stayed the
briefing schedule of the motion for sanctions by order dated May 20, 2010.
3.

On February 14, 2011, the court denied Grochocinski’s motion to dismiss the

motion for sanctions and, at the same time, set a briefing schedule on the motion for
G :\C A S E S \12629.A 2A 6 M ayer B row n\12629.M otion\12629.m t03.w pd

sanctions, setting Grochocinski’s response to the motion due on February 28, 2011, and
defendants’ reply due on March 7, 2011.
4.

Respondent Grochocinski respectfully requests an additional 14 days, to

March 14, 2011, to file his response to the motion for sanctions.
5.

The record in this cause is voluminous, and counsel for Mr. Grochocinski

believes that it will take more than 14 days to assemble a proper response to the motion.
While counsel intends to devote the majority of his working time to the endeavor, the size
of the task, the responsibility entailed and counsel’s obligations to others suggest that 28
days to prepare the response will be needed.
6.

David E. Morgans, counsel for respondent Grochocinski, has spoken and

corresponded with Stephen Novack, counsel for defendants, who has advised him that
defendants have no objection to a 14-day extension of time to respond to the motion for
sanctions, conditioned on defendants’ receiving a total of 14 days (from the present seven
days) to file their reply–a condition to which moving counsel, in turn, does not object.
WHEREFORE, respondent David Grochocinski respectfully moves this court to
extend the briefing schedule of defendants’ motion for sanctions, setting Mr. Grochocinski’s
response as being due on March 14, 2011, with defendants’ reply due on March 28, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
MYERS CARDEN & SAX LLC
By:

s/David E. Morgans
David E. Morgans

David E. Morgans (1959743)
MYERS CARDEN & SAX LLC
Thirty North LaSalle Street
Suite 2200

G:\CASES\12629.A2A6 Mayer Brown\12629.Motion\12629.mt03.wpd

2

Chicago, Illinois 60602
Ph: 312/345-7250
Fx:
312/345-7251

G :\C A S E S \12629.A 2A 6 M ayer B row n\12629.M otion\12629.m t03.w pd

3