WOOD v. BAILEY-HARRIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 2:11-cv-136-WHA. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20120518a85
Visitors: 3
Attorneys: More Attorneys
Filed: May 18, 2012
Latest Update: May 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge. This case is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension to Submit his Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #36) and the Defendant's opposition thereto. Upon consideration, the court hereby orders as follows: 1. The Motion is GRANTED only to the extent that the deadline for response is extended to May 25, 2012, and the deadline for Defendant to reply is extended to June 1, 2012. 2. If the depositi
Summary: ORDER W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge. This case is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension to Submit his Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #36) and the Defendant's opposition thereto. Upon consideration, the court hereby orders as follows: 1. The Motion is GRANTED only to the extent that the deadline for response is extended to May 25, 2012, and the deadline for Defendant to reply is extended to June 1, 2012. 2. If the depositio..
More
ORDER
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge.
This case is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension to Submit his Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #36) and the Defendant's opposition thereto.
Upon consideration, the court hereby orders as follows:
1. The Motion is GRANTED only to the extent that the deadline for response is extended to May 25, 2012, and the deadline for Defendant to reply is extended to June 1, 2012.
2. If the depositions referred to in the Motion actually develop any new information that would be relevant in opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the two policy statements referred to and which could not have been anticipated and developed at the time of the original depositions, the court will consider a motion to supplement by the Plaintiff if filed no later than June 15, 2012. Such motion must contain the specific evidence sought to be added regarding the policy statements, explain why such evidence is relevant in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and why it could not have been submitted by the original deadline through the exercise of due diligence.
Source: Leagle
