Crissen v. Gupta et alMOTION for Extension of Time to August 5, 2013 to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Satyabala V. GuptaS.D. Ind.July 15, 2013UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION JOSHUA B. CRISSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VINOD C. GUPTA and WIPER CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH MOTION FOR TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DISMISSAL OF SATYABALA V. GUPTA The Defendants, by counsel, respectfully move the Court for time through August 5, 2013 to respond to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Satyabala V. Gupta (the “Motion to Reconsider”), and ins support thereof state the following: 1. On Friday, July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff electronically filed his Motion to Reconsider. No brief in support thereof was filed. 2. S.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(c)(2)(B) sets forth the time for a party to respond to a motion other than a motion for summary judgment: “Responsive briefs are due within 14 days after service of the supporting brief.” 3. If S.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1 applies, then, by further operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), a response to the Motion to Reconsider would be due by Monday, July 22, 2013, seventeen (17) days after the Motion to Reconsider was electronically filed. Case 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH Document 64 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 780 2 4. Since Plaintiff did not file a brief in support of his Motion to Reconsider, however, S.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(c)(2)(B) may by its own terms not apply. In that event, it is unclear when a response to the Motion to Reconsider is due. 5. Because of such uncertainty, and proceeding in an abundance of caution, Defendants respectfully ask this Court for time until August 5, 2013 to respond to the Motion to Reconsider. The Motion to Reconsider included an Exhibit A filed under seal which itself was 224 pages long. 1 Additional time until August 5, 2013 is reasonably required for counsel to investigate the contents of said Exhibit and the Motion to Reconsider, consult with his clients concerning the same, and prepare and file a response to the Motion to Reconsider. 6. To the extent that this motion is or is deemed to be a motion for extension of time, the undersigned counsel represents pursuant to S.D. Ind. L.R. 6-1(a) that counsel for Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiff this 15 th day of July, 2013, to solicit his agreement the relief requested in this motion, and said counsel for Plaintiff did not consent. 7. This is the first motion for time to respond to the Motion to Reconsider, and is filed for good cause and not for purposes of vexation or undue delay. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully pray for time through August 5, 2013 to respond to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, and for all just and proper relief in the premises. 1 Documents and electronic records produced in response to the scores of subpoenas and discovery requests that have been issued by Plaintiff in this case have all been Bates numbered, so that the parties can readily access them in their respective document management systems. However, the documents included in Exhibit A were not Bates stamped, so it is unclear where they came from. If the documents included in Exhibit A were produced in response to subpoenas issued by Plaintiff, it would appear that Plaintiff intentionally filed copies of those documents without their Bates numbering in Exhibit A so that Defendants could not easily access or reference them from among the over 50,000 documents and electronic records that have been produced in response to subpoenas and discovery requests to date in this litigation. Case 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH Document 64 Filed 07/15/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 781 3 Respectfully submitted, HARRISON & MOBERLY, LLP /s/ Marc A.W. Stearns Marc A.W. Stearns David J. Theising Stephen E. Arthur HARRISON & MOBERLY, LLP 10 West Market Street, Suite 700 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 639-4511 Facsimile: (317) 639-9565 Email: mstearns@harrisonmoberly.com dtheising@harrisonmoberly.com sarthur@harrisonmoberly.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the 15 th day of July, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Motion for Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Satyabala V. Gupta was filed electronically. Service of this filing will be made on all ECF- registered counsel by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. John S. Sandberg Bhavik R. Patel Jesse B. Rochman SANDBERG PHOENIX & VONGONTARD, P.C. 600 Washington Avenue, 15 th Floor St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Email: jsandberg@sandbergphoenix.com Email: bpatel@sandbergphoenix.com Email: jrochman@sandbergphoenix.com /s/ Marc A.W. Stearns Case 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH Document 64 Filed 07/15/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 782 4 Marc A.W. Stearns HARRISON & MOBERLY, LLP 10 West Market Street, Suite 700 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 639-4511 Facsimile: (317) 639-9565 Email: mstearns@harrisonmoberly.com Counsel for Defendants Case 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH Document 64 Filed 07/15/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 783
