Snyder v. Wilson et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 1 Complaint. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 1/6/14. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TODD SNYDER, ESQUIRE

*

Plaintiff

*

vs.

*

DAVID P. WILSON, et al.

*

Defendants
*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-13-3595

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has before it Defendants' Motion for an Extension
of Time to Respond to Complaint [Document 11] and the materials
submitted relating thereto. The Court finds that neither a
response nor a hearing is necessary.
Having read the motion and attachments, the Court notes a
high level of animosity between the two sides – particularly
between Plaintiff Snyder and counsel for Defendants.

Snyder

contends that in an arbitration proceeding, counsel for
Defendants obtained, and served on him, a subpoena calling for
his production of documents that include privilege and work
product protected information.

He seeks to avoid compliance

with the subpoena.
Counsel for Defendants seeks a 30-day extension of time to
respond to the Complaint.

Counsel for Plaintiff refuses, noting

that such a request would normally be granted as a matter of

courtesy.

However, due to allegedly offensive statements by an

attorney representing Defendants, the consent is denied.
There will be an occasion to sort out the merits of the
case in a dispassionate manner in due course.
It appears that the Complaint raises issues that will
require a reasonable time for there to be an adequate response.
Indeed, a response presenting and addressing all issues for
early resolution would be beneficial to both sides.
So long as Plaintiff is not prejudiced by a delay in
response, the extension should be granted.
For the foregoing reasons:
1.

Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time to
Respond to Complaint [Document 11] is GRANTED
subject to the conditions set forth herein.

2.

Defendants shall not take any action to enforce
the subpoena at issue without leave of this
Court.1

SO ORDERED, on Monday, January 6, 2014.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

1

The Court does not intend to prejudge the case or deprive
Defendants of whatever rights they may have, and the Court may
well grant leave for appropriate action if requested by
Defendants. However, inasmuch as the instant case is being
delayed, the Court finds it appropriate to insure that Plaintiff
is not unduly prejudiced by the delay.
2