Reed et al v. City of Portsmouth

Filing 10

ORDER : Set Deadline as to 8 MOTION for Summary Judgment 2/22/2013. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mary Linda Reed and
Richard Reed
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-164-JD

City of Portsmouth
Procedural Order
Mary Linda and Richard Reed brought a negligence claim and a
claim for loss of consortium against the City of Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, after Mary Linda tripped in a Portsmouth park and
injured her right foot and ankle.

On December 13, 2012,

Portsmouth moved for summary judgment.

On January 8, 2013, the

Reeds filed an assented-to motion for an extension of time to
respond to the motion for summary judgment.
In the motion for an extension of time, the Reeds stated
that they had propounded interrogatories to Portsmouth three
weeks before January 8, 2013, and had not then received the
answers.

The Reeds asked that the deadline for their response to

Portsmouth’s motion for summary judgment be extended to allow
them to have the interrogatory answers before filing their
response.

Specifically, the Reeds asked that they be allowed to

file their response to the motion for summary judgment within
thirty days after they received Portsmouth’s answers.

Counsel

for the Reeds proposed that he would notify the court “by
appropriate pleading on the day he receives the defendant’s
interrogatory answers so that this Court will then know the
actual deadline for the plaintiffs’ responsive pleadings.”1

The

assented-to motion was granted on January 9, 2013.
To date, the Reeds’ counsel has not notified the court that
he has received Portsmouth’s answers to the interrogatories.
Based on the Reeds’ motion for an extension of time, Portsmouth’s
answers were due around January 18, 2013.
33(b)(2).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Nothing has been filed by either the Reeds or

Portsmouth to indicate that any delay has occurred or that any
dispute has arisen about the interrogatories or the answers.
Therefore, the court assumes that the Reeds received Portsmouth’s
answers to their interrogatories on or before January 18, 2013.
Based on the assented-to motion, the Reeds agreed to file their
response within thirty days of receiving the answers.

1

A response to a motion for summary judgment is not a
pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
2

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Reeds shall file their
response to Portsmouth’s motion for summary judgment on or before
February 22, 2013.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 6, 2013
cc:

Peter E. Hutchins, Esquire
William G. Scott, Esquire

3