Skip to main content
Case Document

(Proposed) Order For Extension Of Time

Date
Document Type
Discovery Motions, Memoranda, and Orders
Attachments
203062.pdf
203062.wpd
This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,    

                  Plaintiff,

                  v.

SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC.,

                  Defendant.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|         
Civil Action No.1:03-CV-00434 (HHK)


ORDER

This Matter, having come before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiff to file its Reply Memorandum in response to the Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with Plaintiff's Discovery Requests and for an Extension of Time for Jurisdictional Discovery, and

It Appearing, that the Motion is uncontested and should be granted for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiff to file its Reply Memorandum in response to the Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with Plaintiff's Discovery Requests and for an Extension of Time for Jurisdictional Discovery is granted and the Plaintiff shall have until July 25, 2003 to file any such Reply Memorandum.


ENTERED this _____ day of ___________, 2003.

  _______________________________
Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.
United States District Judge

COPIES TO:
Nina B. Hale
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
325 7th Street, N.W. Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20004

Thomas G. Slater, Jr.
Hunton & Williams
Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
951 East Byrd Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074

Related Case
U.S. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Updated April 18, 2023