Sherman et al v. Sunsong America et al

District of Nebraska, ned-8:2004-cv-00300

STRICKEN - ORDER that the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Summary Judgment {{247}} is granted, to a limited extent. Defendants shall file their reply briefs on or before Friday, January 26, 2007. Ordered by Judge Laurie Smith Camp. Modified on 1/18/2007 to indicate stricken per order, filing 250.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

8:04-cv-00300-LSC-FG3 Doc # 249 Filed: 01/18/07 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 3871 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MARGARET SHERMAN, and) CASE NO. 8:04CV300 RICHARD SHERMAN,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) ORDER) SUNSONG AMERICA, Inc., SHIU) FUNG FIREWORKS, Co., LTD.,) WINCO FIREWORKS, Inc., WINCO) FIREWORKS INTERNATIONAL, LLC.,) SHANGLI JIN XIN EXPORT) FIREWORKS FACTORY, and) WILLIAM LU,)) Defendants.) This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Summary Judgment filed by Shiu Fung Fireworks Co., Ltd. ("Shiu Fung"), Winco Fireworks, Inc., and Winco Fireworks International, LLC, (collectively, "Winco") (all collectively, "Defendants"). (Filing No. 247). Defendants seek an additional 15 days, 20 days altogether, to file their reply briefs. While I appreciate the Defendants' adherence to the rules1 of this Court in timely seeking an extension of time within which to file their reply briefs, which should be noted by Plaintiffs' counsel,2 I do not find good cause to extend the time for Defendants' reply by more than a few days. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs filed their brief more than 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 (a) and (b); NECivR 6.1(2) and 56.1(b)(2). 2 Defendants' motions for summary judgment were filed on December 15, 2006, which made Plaintiffs' brief and evidence in opposition to the motions due on January 4, 2007 (with the benefit of the three-day-mailing rule, at the latest on January 8, 2007). The Plaintiffs' brief was not filed until January 16, 2007, more than one week later. Defendants raised no objection to the Plaintiffs' late filing. 8:04-cv-00300-LSC-FG3 Doc # 249 Filed: 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 3872 10 days out of time (albeit without objection from Defendants), and Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' delay justifies Defendants' request for an additional 15 days to prepare reply briefs. Because the briefing schedule directly affects the Court's ability to resolve the motions before trial, currently set for March 12, 2007, I am not persuaded by this argument. Reply briefs are for the purpose of responding only to arguments that could not have been made in the initial, supporting brief and addressing unanticipated evidence. Much of the evidence offered by the Plaintiffs in opposition to the Defendants' motions for summary judgment is in the form of deposition testimony; depositions that Defendants' counsel attended and with which counsel presumably are familiar. While the number of issues is significant, the reply brief need not be lengthy. For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Summary Judgment (Filing No. 247) is granted, to a limited extent; and 2. Defendants shall file their reply briefs on or before Friday, January 26, 2007. Dated this 18th day of January 2007. BY THE COURT: s/Laurie Smith Camp United States District Judge 2