United States District Court, Southern District of New York
January 30, 2003
STEPHEN PEYSER D/B/A ONE BY DIANA, DIANE MOSS, PLAINTIFFS, AGAINST SEARLE BLATT & CO., LTD., STEVE SEARLE, ALICE BLATT SEARLE, CAROL HORN, RONI RABL, INC., NEIMAN-MARCUS GROUP, INC. AND E.N.K. PRODUCTIONS LTD., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Whitman Knapp, Senior United States District Judge
In July 2002, Plaintiffs Stephen Peyser and Diane Moss, proceeding pro se, asked this Court to resolve a number of issues pertaining to the docket. On July 23, 2002, we issued an order addressing those concerns, albeit perhaps not to the Plaintiffs' satisfaction. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs indicated that they intended to submit a "response" to our July 23, 2002 Order. In effect, they apparently intended to ask us to reconsider that order. However, they asked for an extension of time so that they would have additional time to prepare that "response."
On August 1, 2002, we granted the Plaintiffs' initial request for an extension of time in which to file a "response" to our July 23, 2002 Order. After Ms. Moss suffered an accident which resulted in a number of purported medical injuries, we granted the pro se Plaintiffs' five additional requests for an extension of time in light of both Ms. Moss' medical excuses and the amount of time which Mr. Peyser had to devote to both attending to her condition as well as their business. Nevertheless, when the Plaintiffs asked for a seventh extension of time in December 2002 and some of the defendants and former defendants opposed that request in light of the delay which would be engendered thereby, we indicated that "all things have to come to an end." Accordingly, we granted the Plaintiffs one last lengthy extension of time to submit their "response" but held that if we did not receive that "response" by January 31, 2003, we would consider the matter closed.
The Plaintiffs, on the eve of this deadline, once again ask for an extension of time by way of a letter dated January 30, 2003. On this occasion, they ask us to extend their deadline to file a response until, at a minimum, February 3, 2003. Ms. Moss contends that her medical problems continue to hinder her ability to file the "response" and now contends that Mr. Peyser would also have a difficult time submitting the "response" by January 31. Nothing in that letter, the accompanying documents, or the letter from Mr. Peyser's doctor persuades us that at least one of the two Plaintiffs could not submit the "response" to our July 2002 Order by January 31.
Ordinarily, parties asking a court to reconsider an order must do so within ten days of the entry of that order on the docket. The Plaintiffs have now had more than six months to file their "response." Nonetheless, since the defendants have not suggested that they would be averse to one final extension of time, particularly one which is brief, we will grant the Plaintiffs' request. Since Ms. Moss indicates that a "brief" extension will allow the Plaintiffs to be "successful in completing" their "task," we grant their eighth request for an extension of time. They may submit their "response" before February 4, 2003. No "response" submitted thereafter will be considered.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.