Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lynn E., et al., and All Others Similarly Situated v. Governor of the State of New Hampshire; et al.

January 22, 2013

LYNN E., ET AL., AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS
v.
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; ET AL. DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF
v.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

ORDER

Re: (Document No. 63)

Defendants' Notice of Intent to File Motion for Leave to file Reply Memorandum Ruling: It does not appear that a reply will prove useful, since defendants' preview of the content of the anticipated reply suggests little more than a proffer of subjective rebuttals of perceived slights about dilatory tactics and "gaming the system" - none of which would seem relevant to why the defendants have not completed whatever class certification discovery they thought important in the six (6) month period provided in the scheduling order and previously confirmed by defense counsel as adequate (indeed, nothing in the motion to extend or supporting memorandum specifically identifies what discovery defendants have not completed that might be critical, nor why that discovery was not completed). Moreover, the late timing of the motion to extend the deadline for filing a class certification motion means that, if allowed to run its usual procedural course, the motion for class certification deadline would be tolled, without any apparent justification. Accordingly, if defendants wish to file a reply memorandum - one actually related to the substance of the motion, they may do so on or before 4:00 PM on Thursday, January 24, 2013. For planning purposes, the court is unlikely to grant the motion to extend. The court's intent, as made clear previously, is that this case will proceed along as set out in the scheduling order, absent some compelling reason to change that schedule. The parties should not anticipate easy alteration of dates or deadlines in this case, as it is the type of case that can easily become unwieldy.

cc:

20130122

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.