King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association et al v. J. Kenneth Blackwell et al

Filing 55

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply New date requested 9/8/2008. by Plaintiffs Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy, League of Young Voters/Columbus, Willis Brown, Paul Gregory, Miles Curtiss, Matthew Segal, Harvey Wasserman, King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association. (Arnebeck, Clifford)

King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association et al v. J. Kenneth Blackwell et al

Doc. 55

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION KING LINCOLN BRONZEVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL., CASE NO. 2:06-CV-745 PLAINTIFFS, JUDGE MARBLEY VS. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP JENNIFER BRUNNER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO REPLY TO MOVING INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiffs move to extend the time to Monday, September 8, 2008 for their reply to moving intervenors' response to plaintiffs' motion to strike the pending motion for leave to intervene.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr. Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr. (0033391) Trial Attorney [e-mail] Robert J. Fitrakis (0076796) [e-mail] 1000 East Main Street, Suite 102 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-224-8771 Henry W. Eckhart (0020202) [e-mail] 50 West Broad Street, Suite 2117 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-461-0984 Counsel for Plaintiffs

1

Dockets.Justia.com

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

Plaintiffs request an extension, to September 8, 2008, to reply to moving intervenors' response to plaintiffs' motion to strike their motion for leave to intervene.

Plaintiffs' trial attorney, because of his competing work load, including preparation of a response to the Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for relief from the stay in this case, and a long scheduled out-of-state family summer vacation through the end of August, requires more time to complete a proper response and review the same with his co-counsel, one of whose authorization was put at issue in the declaration of former paralegal for plaintiffs' counsel, Ms. Lupo.

The undersigned contacted Ms. Lupo on September 4th, to request consent to this request. She advised that the moving litigants had agreed to confer with each other in these matters, and that she would initiate a conference call with all the pro se moving intervenors, convey the request and that one of them would call with their response this morning. Mr. Kettler advised cocounsel Fitrakis this morning by telephone and me by voice mail that his group would not consent to an extension of time.

Plaintiffs' trial counsel to the best of his recollection has always requested consent of opposing counsel in his requests for extensions of time, as a matter of professional courtesy. With respect to his second request for an extension to respond to the Secretary of State's opposition to the motion to lift the stay, Mr. Coglianese had made clear his willingness to consent to an extension and his deference to requesting counsel's judgment in terms of what was reasonable and 2

necessary. Because of the ongoing communications in regard to the necessity and scope of relief from stay in advance of the 2008 election, plaintiffs' trial counsel thought that the lack of opposition from the defendant was implicit. However, this initial second request for additional time to respond erroneously omitted any reference to consultation or consent and therefore failed to conform to local rule 7.3.

With respect to plaintiffs' initial request for an extension of time to respond to the moving intervenors' response to plaintiffs' motion to strike, because of this group's failure to consult with counsel for plaintiffs in regard to their proposed intervention and the plaintiffs' strong opposition to their intervention, plaintiffs' trial attorney assumed that the moving intervenors would not consent to an extension request. For that reason, the undersigned did not consult with this group, prior to filing the first request and unintentionally failed to follow Loc. R. 7.3(a), for which he apologizes to all concerned.

Wherefore, plaintiffs urge that the requested extension is in the interest of the efficient administration of justice on the merits and should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, /s/Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr. Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr. (0033391) Trial Attorney [e-mail] Robert J. Fitrakis (0076796) [e-mail] 1000 East Main Street, Suite 102 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-224-8771 3

Henry W. Eckhart (0020202) [e-mail] 50 West Broad Street, Suite 2117 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-461-0984 Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify a copy of the foregoing was served upon counsel of record by means of the Court's electronic filing system and upon the pro se moving intervenors by ordinary mail on this 4th day of September 2008 . /s/ Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.

4