You're viewing Docket Item 39 from the case Boyd et al v. Sysco Corporation et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




4:13-cv-00599-RBH Date Filed 01/08/15 Entry Number 39 Page 1 of 2



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

FLORENCE DIVISION

Plaintiffs,

WAYNE BOYD AND WHITFIELD R.
BOYD,



v.

SYSCO CORPORATION, SYSCO
CORPORATION GROUP BENEFIT PLAN,
AND UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,



Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Number: 4:13-cv-00599-RBH





MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME











Pursuant to Rule 6(b), Fed. R. Civ. Proc. and Local Civil Rule 6.01, Defendants hereby

move for an order enlarging their time and request an extension of seven (7) days to file their

memoranda in support of summary judgment. Defendants memoranda is currently due January

9, 2015, and Defendants would request an extension to January 16, 2015.

Defendants’ motion is made on the grounds that the Court’s order of August 26, 2014,

gave each party sixty (60) days to file cross-memoranda in support of judgment from the date of

the Court’s ruling on any discovery motions. The Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ last discovery

motion on November 10, 2014. Thereafter, Defendants produced the required materials on

December 11, 2014. Defendants did not know if Plaintiffs intended to file any responsive

motions and have thus been in a state of flux since their production of materials in compliance

with the Court’s November 10, 2014 ruling. On January 7, 2015, counsel for Defendants

reached out to counsel for Plaintiffs in an attempt to clarify whether Plaintiffs intended to file

any additional discovery motions, and whether counsel for Plaintiffs wished to seek clarification

or a definitive date for cross-memoranda from the parties and said request was declined.



1

4:13-cv-00599-RBH Date Filed 01/08/15 Entry Number 39 Page 2 of 2



As a further grounds for request, the Defendants expected that Plaintiffs would object to

the Administrative Record, and the parties had not yet agreed on the Administrative Record. On

January 6, 2015, counsel for Plaintiffs asked if Defendants intended to file previously produced

Administrative Record, and based on the request, Defendants still anticipate some objection to

the Administrative Record to be produced. Based on the ongoing disagreement over the record,

there has been confusion over the actual due dates and expected action of the other parties.

The undersigned affirms that, prior to filing this motion, he attempted to communicate

with Plaintiffs’ counsel, but was unable to do so and filed this motion in an effort to alert the

Court of the request at the earliest possible time.












January 8, 2015




s/Robert L. Brown
Robert L. Brown Fed. ID No.: 10255
CLAWSON and STAUBES, LLC
1612 Marion Street, Suite 200
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Phone: 800.774.8242;Fax: 843.722.2867
[email protected];20134250
Attorneys for Defendants


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



I hereby certify that the foregoing was served via electronic filing upon the following the 8th day
of January, 2015:










Blaney A. Coskrey, III

1201 Main Street, Suite 1980

Columbia, SC 29201




_/s/Robert L. Brown_

Robert L. Brown

2