Reisinger v. City of Wilkes Barre et al

Filing 27

Plaintiff's REPLY BRIEF to the 26 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION to Plaintiff's 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to extend discovery and dispositive motions for sixty days, filed by Pltf Joseph R. Reisinger. (Loftus, Peter)

Download PDF
Reisinger v. City of Wilkes Barre et al Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION ­ LAW : Plaintiff, : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. : : THE CITY OF WILKES BARRE, et al. : (Hon. Richard P. Conaboy) : Defendants. : No. 3:09-CV-210 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO THE ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MICHAEL KERMEC AND THE CADLE II, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME NOW COMES, the Plaintiff by his attorneys THE LOFTUS LAW FIRM, P.C. and replies to the Defendant Kermec and Cadle's Objections as follows: Plaintiff has no objection to extending the Defendants' expert deadline which was understood to be extended in the original Motion. The extension should not be limited to taking depositions of the Plaintiff and his witnesses. Obviously, it is quite common that after the deposition of any party, the parties may desire to depose other witnesses who may be identified or who may information pro or con concerning what the one party's witnesses have to offer. Similarly, additional document requests or interrogatories may be appropriate to obtain information raised during the course of the depositions. JOSEPH R. REISINGER, Dockets.Justia.com Subsequently, to limit the extension to only Mr. Reisinger's deposition would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff and may indeed actually harm the Defendants prohibiting them from gathering other information that may arise during the depositions. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Defendants response be denied as to Section (ii). Respectfully submitted, THE LOFTUS LAW FIRM, P.C. /s/ Peter G. Loftus, Esquire Peter G. Loftus, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 09943 Box V, 1207 N. Abington Rd. Waverly, PA 18471 (570)586-8604

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?