LAMBERT v. HUSSEY-MAYFIELD MEMORIAL PUBLIC LIBRARY
Filing
26
Joint MOTION for Continuance /Extend Case Management Plan Deadlines, filed by Plaintiff LAURA J. LAMBERT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(McMinn, Richard)
LAMBERT v. HUSSEY-MAYFIELD MEMORIAL PUBLIC LIBRARY
Doc. 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LAURA J. LAMBERT Plaintiff, v. HUSSEY-MAYFIELD MEMORIAL PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 1:10-cv-0919-JMS-TAB ) ) ) ) )
JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES Comes now the Plaintiff, Laura J. Lambert ("Lambert"), by counsel, and Defendant, Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library ("Library'), by counsel, and for their Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines, state: 1. On July 10, 2010, Lambert filed her Complaint. On August 26, 2010, the Library
filed its Answer. 2. On November 15, 2010, an Initial Pretrial Conference was held and the Case
Management Plan was approved. 3. Since that date, parties have been actively involved with settlement. Various
demands and offers have been exchanged and parties continue to negotiate in good faith. 4. On February 24, 2011, Lambert informed her counsel that she has been diagnosed
with breast cancer and is scheduled to start an aggressive six (6) week radiation treatment plan on March 7, 2011. At the conclusion of the radiation treatment plan (approximately April 18,
1
Dockets.Justia.com
2011), Lambert's condition will be reevaluated. anticipated that additional care will be required. 5.
Although not known for certain, it is not
Pursuant to the Case Management Plan, discovery is set to close on May 20,
2011. During treatment, and for several weeks after, Lambert will be unavailable for deposition. During treatment and for several weeks thereafter, Lambert will not be in a physical or emotional condition to assist her counsel and/or to actively participate in the prosecution of her case. Insufficient time will remain after Lambert's radiation treatment and recovery process to complete discovery within the current deadline. 6. It is believed that an extension of time of ninety (90) days of all current Case
Management Deadlines will be sufficient for Lambert to receive treatment, recuperate and to be physically and emotionally able to participate in the litigation of her case. 7. On February 28, 2011, counsel for Lambert spoke with counsel for the Library
concerning the need for this blanket extension of time of all case management deadlines. Counsel for Library was very sympathetic with Lambert's condition. Counsel for Defendant agreed with the need for this Motion and voiced no objection to the ninety (90) day extension of deadlines. 8. Simultaneously with this motion, the parties are filing a Stipulation of Dismissal
with respect to Count Two of Plaintiff's Complaint Title VII Gender Discrimination. 9. During Lambert's treatment, parties will continue with settlement negotiations in
an effort to bring this entire matter to an amicable resolution. Parties remain hopeful that settlement will be obtained.
2
10.
This Motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay and is necessary
to ensure Lambert is able to physically and emotionally participate in the prosecution of her case. WHEREFORE, Parties request an Order extending all of the current Case Management deadlines for a period of ninety (90) days, and for all other relief as is just and proper. Respectfully submitted,
Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant
/s/ Richard W. McMinn Richard W. McMinn (13715-49) HASKIN & LARUE, LLP 255 N. Alabama Street Second Floor Indianapolis, IN 46203 Phone: (317) 955-9500 Facsimile: (317) 955-2570 rmcminn@hlllaw.com
/s/ Jane Ann Himsel Jane Ann Himsel (#15192-29) LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Chase Tower/Circle Building 111 Monument Circle, Suite 702 Indianapolis, IN 46203 Phone: (317) 287-3600 Facsimile: (317) 636-0712 jhimsel@littler.com
3
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?