Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas
Filing
225
MOTION to Continue
Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial Date by Jammie Thomas. (Attachments: #
1 Certificate of Service)(Toder, Brian)
Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas
Doc. 225
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Case No. 06cv1497 (MJD/RLE) CAPITOL RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware general partnership; ARISTA RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED INTERSCOPE RECORDS, a MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL California general partnership; DATE WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation; and UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Jammie Thomas, Defendant. Defendant, by and through her undersigned counsel moves the Court for an order continuing the commencement of the trial in the above entitled matter, presently calendared for March 9, 2009, to such other and later date as is convenient for the Court.
Dockets.Justia.com
Defendant's counsel avows that he has conferred with plaintiffs' counsel, Timothy Reynolds, who has authorized defendant's counsel to represent to the Court that plaintiffs have no objection to such continuance. Defendant's grounds for the request are several, and taken together would compel the conclusion that granting a continuance of the trial date would be in the best interests of the parties and the Court. Defendant's counsel has a serious conflict respecting the March 9 trial date. He and Karl Cambronne, representing class plaintiffs are going to try Mooney, et all v. Allianz, Case No. 06-cv-545 (ADM/FLN). Although Judge Montgomery has suggested that that trial may have to wait until some time early this summer, March 9 has been long been set as the date other co-counsel from other states will all meet at the offices of the undersigned for several days of intensive trial preparation. This is a large complicated trial with billions of dollars at issue. Although defendant's counsel was well-aware of the potential conflict, it was much later that circumstances developed that caused him to have a major role in the Allianz trial. In any event, plaintiffs' counsel is satisfied with the reasons. Secondarily, there is a motion extant to permit a limited modification of the scheduling order that would allow defendant to identify a new expert witness.
2
This motion is opposed by plaintiffs, but plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition points out the fact that, if Judge Erickson grants defendant's motion, plaintiffs would not have enough time to deal with this new addition to defendant's trial arsenal. Granting a continuance of the trial date would cure that particular concern. Finally, the parties have had a very limited dialogue respecting settlement. Having additional time before trial would facilitate the same. There are other reasons that support the request, but because of their personal nature, would have to be presented in camera. Dated: February 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted, CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, P.A. By /s Brian N. Toder Brian N. Toder #17869X Bryan L. Bleichner, #0326689 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 3397300 Fax (612)3362940 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
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?