Pittman v. County of Madison, State of Illinois et al
Filing
62
ORDER denying 61 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/16/10. (klh, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS REGINALD PITTMAN, By and through his Guardian and Next Friend, ROBIN M. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MADISON, STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants. HERNDON, Chief Judge: Now before the Court is Defendants' motion for extension of time to file reply brief (Doc. 61). Specifically, Defendant's counsels states that they need more time to prepare a reply to Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment due to the detailed issues involved. Local Rule 7.1 (c) states in part: Reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the exceptional circumstances. Here, Defendants' motion for extension of time to file reply brief does not state the exceptional circumstances as to why a reply brief is needed. Thus, the Court DENIES the motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 16th day of June, 2010. ORDER No. 08-0890-DRH
/s/ DavidRHer|do| Chief Judge United States District Court
Page 1 of 1
]]>
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?
