ARGUMENT

The motion, (document 35 and memorandum document 36), 'Motion For Extension of Time To File Response To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment', is based on 'discovery' documents (including a dismissed former Defendant) filed after the motion for summary judgment was pending. That motion was not based on any rule permitting the granting of an extension of time to respond to summary judgment. Defendants have not claimed that the filing of summary judgment was premature. In their motion, Defendants have only claimed a response to summary judgment would be 'simpler' and allow time for a transcript of 'discovery' filed after summary judgment was pending. Defendants have not requested that the court not rule on summary judgment. Defendants have not claimed any discovery extension granted would result in any genuine issue of fact.

In the motion to extend time to respond to summary judgment the Defendants have merely relied upon their 'pleadings and records on file'. Defendants have claimed rule 6.01 as the basis for such extension of time. The only element of rule 6.01 fulfilled by Defendants was the issuance of an: "other statement giving the reasons therefor". Such 'other statement' consisted only of pleas for ease, without justification to the summary judgment as absolutely no attempt was made by Defendants in six months to conduct discovery.

In Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion, Defendants did not raise any claim of any issues of fact. Defendants only claim the requested extension would result in Defendants response being 'much more efficient'. No rule or law permits a granting of time to respond to summary judgment in order to make Defendants' response easier, simpler or more efficient.

Defendants have asserted that they 'contemplate' filing a cross Motion for summary judgment. Such cross motion would have to have been within the time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as an affirmative defense. Defendants have not filed a response to summary judgment of any nature. 

On its face, Defendants' 'Motion For Extension of Time To File Response To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment' is submitted to this court in bad faith as it is completely devoid of any potential to be granted.

According to F.R.C.P. rule 56(e) "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s re-sponse, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party."