Amara v. Cigna Corp, et al

MOTION for Extension of Time until 5/6/2005 to file motion for leave to amend and any motion in limine

D. Conn.May 2, 2005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JANICE C. AMARA, individually : CIVIL ACTION NO. and on behalf of others similarly : 3:01-CV-2361 (MRK) situated, : Plaintiff, : : v. : : CIGNA CORP. AND CIGNA : PENSION PLAN, : : Defendants. : : APRIL 29, 2005 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DATES The plaintiff, Janice Amara, moves to extend the deadline in the Court’s March 21, 2005 Scheduling Order for both parties to file several documents with the Court from the Order’s current deadline of Monday, May 2, 2005 to Friday, May 6, 2005. The documents at issue are: (1) any motion for leave to amend the complaint and any motion to add additional named representatives, (2) any motion in limine about the relevance of direct testimony to “likely prejudice” under Burke v. Kodak Ret. Inc. Plan, 336 F.3d 103, 113-14 (2d Cir. 2003), (3) the parties’ stipulation or their separate memoranda of law regarding the impact of the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Depenbrock v. CIGNA, 389 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2004). In support of her motion, Amara represents: Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK Document 109 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 1 of 3 1. Amara’s counsel have made substantial progress on the documents, but they have discovered the need for additional work that can’t practically be completed by the deadline. 2. Because a draft of a proposed stipulation was only recently completed, Amara’s counsel need additional time to negotiate a potential stipulation concerning the impact of Depenbrock. 3. During drafting, Amara’s counsel came to believe that it would be useful for them to have the documents the Court ordered produced by May 2, 2005 prior to completing their work. 4. This is Amara’s first request to extend this deadline. 5. Opposing counsel does not object. WHEREFORE, Amara asks the Court to extend the deadline in the Court’s March 21, 2005 Scheduling Order for both parties to file the following documents from the current deadline of Monday, May 2, 2005 to Friday, May 6, 2005: (1) any motion for leave to amend the complaint and any motion to add additional named representatives, (2) any motion in limine about the relevance of direct testimony to “likely prejudice” under Burke v. Kodak Ret. Inc. Plan, 336 F.3d 103, 113-14 (2d Cir. 2003), (3) the parties’ stipulation or their separate memoranda of law regarding the impact of the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Depenbrock v. CIGNA, 389 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2004). 2 Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK Document 109 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 2 of 3 THE PLAINTIFF: Janice Amara By: /s/ Thomas G. Moukawsher Thomas G. Moukawsher ct08940 Ian O. Smith ct24135 Moukawsher & Walsh, LLC 21 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 278-7000 tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com Stephen R. Bruce (Proc Hac Vice) Suite 210 805 15th St., NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 371-8013 HER ATTORNEYS CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed on this date to the defendant at: Joseph J. Costello Jeremy P. Blumenfeld Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Christopher A. Parlo, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178-0060 Dated this 29th day of April, 2005. /s/ Thomas G. Moukawsher Thomas G. Moukawsher 3 Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK Document 109 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 3 of 3