Penguin Group(USA) Incorporated v. American BuddhaREPLY to Response to Motion re: 120 MOTION for Extension of Time Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery RequestsD. Ariz.July 21, 2014 Page 1 of 2 Reply Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Application 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 John Sullivan (csb # 204648) 10857 Kling Street North Hollywood, California 91602 Tel: (818) 769-7236 Fax: (818) 301-2175 JohnW.Sullivan@yahoo.com Attorney pro hac vice for Defendant American Buddha IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Plaintiff, vs. American Buddha, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: CV-13-02075-TUC- JGZ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION PURSUANT TO F.R.Civ.P. 6(b) TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY Good cause exists to grant defendant American Buddha’s Ex Parte Application Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 6(b) to Extend Time to Respond to Discovery (Doc. # 120). Accordingly, the Court is respectfully requested to exercise its discretion to grant the same. As the authorities recited in the opening brief make clear, the application should be granted because: Defendant’s counsel requested a stipulation to the extension via email five (5) days before the expiration of the time period at issue. Case 4:13-cv-02075-JGZ Document 123 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 Reply Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Application 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant engaged opposing counsel in an exchange of emails regarding the proposed extension, and received only ambiguous replies and a letter that alluded to matters irrelevant to the requested extension. Defendant’s counsel did not reply to opposing counsel’s after-office-hours emails because the time to file the application ex parte under the auspices of Rule 6(b)(1)(A),1 even upon stipulation, was rapidly waning. Defendant’s ex parte application provides the Court and opposing counsel with particularized information regarding the need for the requested extension. Plaintiff has expressed no opposition to granting the requested extension in its reply brief . (Response to Ex Parte Application, Docket # 122, page 3, lines 13 - 14.) Granting the application will not delay trial or any other proceeding in the action. Accordingly, the Court is respectfully requested to issue an Order extending the date for Defendant to serve its Responses to Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production to and until August 15, 2014. DATED: July 21, 2014 /s/ John W. Sullivan John W. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 204648) Attorney for Defendant American Buddha, admitted pro hac vice 1 A motion under subsection (b)(1)(A) may be made “without notice … if a request is made before the original time … expires;” whereas, a motion made under subsection (b)(1)(B) can only be made after “the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Case 4:13-cv-02075-JGZ Document 123 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2
