Opinion
04 Civ. 10014 (PKL).
January 11, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER
By a January 6, 2005 letter to the Court, plaintiff requested an enlargement of its time to answer KBC Financial Products UK Ltd's ("KBC") motion to intervene. As currently scheduled, plaintiff's answer is due on January 17, 2005. Plaintiff requests this deadline be enlarged to five business days after defendant files an answer to plaintiff's complaint or a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), in other words, February 14, 2005. Plaintiff makes this request because it claims its answer to KBC's motion to intervene turns on defendant's answer and/or 12(b) motion. In fact, plaintiff claims it may not oppose KBC's motion depending on defendant's answer and/or 12(b) motion. In a January 10, 2005 letter to the Court, plaintiff further indicated that it had previously consented to extend defendant's time to answer to February 7, 2005, thus defendant's own enlargement further contributed to plaintiff's need to enlarge its time to answer KBC's motion.
Defendant, in a January 7, 2005 letter to the Court, states that it does not consent to plaintiff's request for ostensibly the same reasons offered by KBC in its January 10, 2005 letter to the Court. In sum, KBC claims delay will prejudice the bondholders seeking to intervene because it will prolong the uncertainty as to their assets status.
In light of counsels' letters and Rule 6(b), the Court exercises its discretion to GRANT plaintiff's request for additional time in the interest of judicial economy. Neither defendant nor KBC as potential third party intervenors have stated a reason which would justify denial of plaintiff's request. Therefore, plaintiff's answer to KBC's motion to intervene is due on February 14, 2005
SO ORDERED.