Opinion
3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB
01-06-2023
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, Michael R. Kealy, Esq., Ashley C. Nikkel, Esq. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP Gary M. Elden (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Riley C. Mendoza (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Kathleen M. Ryan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, Michael R. Kealy, Esq., Ashley C. Nikkel, Esq.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP Gary M. Elden (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Riley C. Mendoza (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Kathleen M. Ryan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
ORDER GRANTING UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR (1) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, A NEW TRIAL, AND (2) PERMISSION TO FILE AN OVERLENGTH REPLY
LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) hereby requests: (1) an extension of time, to and including January 20, 2023, to file a Reply in support of its Supplemental Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, Alternatively, a New Trial (ECF No. 303) (“the Reply”); and (2) an order permitting the Reply to exceed the 12 pages allotted under the local rules by 4 additional pages (bringing the total to 16 pages). In support of this Motion, Union Pacific states as follows:
1. Union Pacific's Reply is currently due on January 13, 2023.
2. Over the holiday break, Union Pacific's counsel, Peter O'Neill, learned that his wife has to undergo a medical procedure in Denver, Colorado on January 12, 2023. The procedure will require Mr. O'Neill to travel to/from Denver the week of January 9-13, and will require him to be away from his computer for at least half of that week.
3. As a result, Union Pacific's counsel contacted Winecup's counsel to see whether Winecup would agree to a one-week extension of the January 13 Reply deadline.
4. At the same time, Union Pacific asked Winecup's counsel whether they would agree to a extension of the 12-page limit for the Reply that is set under Local Rule 7-3(b).
5. Winecup's counsel graciously agreed to the one-week extension of the Reply deadline. Winecup's counsel also agreed that Union Pacific could have 16 pages for its Reply, which is consistent with the parties' previous agreement that their opening and opposition briefs could exceed the typical page limits by roughly 33%.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing circumstances and agreements, Union Pacific requests that the Court order the deadline for the Reply be extended by one week, to January 20, 2023, and that the Reply may be 16 pages in length.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.