from an extension? If so, they are sadly mistaken.Finally we address the merits ofthe motion
or, more accurately, for the most part, the lackthereof. Counsel brazenly suggests that he was out of the office "nearly the entire last week and ahalf' for various reasons. (Mot.
It bears noting that conspicuously absent from this claim isany statement that this absence was
an emergency or unexpected, and it simply focuses, asplaintiffs have been fond of doing on too numerous occasions to address individually, on theimmediate
totally ignores the overall picture.The height of audaciousness is reached in paragraphs
What those paragraphs simply say
without saying it
is that as a result of our (plaintiffs) not doing what
should have done in thefirst place, we need more time
and by that logic if they continue this practice they will need stillmore time
and so on. They dare argue that they need the deposition testimony of Mr. Halmos("arguably the most critical witness in this matter") (Mot.
to file their motion for summaryjudgment (to incorporate Mr. Halmos' testimony where necessary in their dispositive motion).
He is the plaintiff! He is their witness! Apparently with all the years of experience and expertisein the plaintiffs' legal camp, no one has figured out that affidavits can be used in support of summaryjudgment!
(a). In short, and with one exception, the motion is absurd on allfronts.That exception has to do with defendant's counterclaim and affirmative defenses. The Courtwill give plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt as to these items. It is this benefit of the doubt
that prevents the Court from imposing severe sanctions for this latest waste of the Court's time(for the most part).Therefore, and the Court being otherwise hlly advised in the premises, it is hereby
Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 1004 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2010 Page 2 of 3