SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : PHGI -Perihelion Global, Inc.

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: scion who wrote (751)6/10/2008 2:02:59 PM
From: scion  Read Replies (2) of 827
 
06/05/2008 8 ORDER re 7 Motion for Extension of Time. Pla's response due 6/10/08. Motions terminated: 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Burr & Forman, LLP.. Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 6/5/08. (SMH2, ) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
------------

Doc 8
Extract

ORDER

This matter is before the court on “Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time” (doc. 7) in which Plaintiff request 21 days to respond to Defendants’ “Motion for Change of Venue” (doc. 5).

Although the court has not yet entered a scheduling order in this case, the court’s standard scheduling order states that parties wishing to respond to non-dispositive motions should contact the court immediately to advise the court of their desire to file a response and should respond within three days of the motion’s filing. In the instant case, Plaintiff did contact court staff by telephone and communicated not only a desire to respond but also a request that the response not be due for 21 days. Court staff explained that the time for responding to such a motion was normally three days and that any request for additional time to respond should be offered by motion.

Plaintiff did indeed file a motion, which asked for twenty-one days to respond. However, aside from noting that the additional time “will permit the Plaintiff to review pertinent information and properly respond to Defendants’ motion,” Plaintiff’s motion provided no explanation regarding why Plaintiff would need such an extraordinary amount of time to respond to a simple one-and-a-half page motion for change of venue. The court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed and recognizes that vacation plans often cause challenges in attorneys’ summer schedules, but the motion in question did not advise the court of any such challenges. The motion for change of venue is not a complicated one requiring in depth legal research and analysis and will not dispose of this case. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for
extension of time to respond but instead of allowing Plaintiff three weeks, the court will allow Plaintiff three business days from the date of this Order to respond, making the response due on
Tuesday, June 10, 2008.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of June, 2008.
____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext