Laserfiche WebLink
'�::_��'� , <br />,� �s , <br />� <br />i w�. �A y � , �yy� .��R:�t.id � <br />. �se.� . /e <br />`� <br />� <br />- .. _ _.._,,...�...�,._ + � <br />t� <br />�I�i;:_�V��Ol1 �!� Wat�r Resources, pavision 5. (See Affidavit in Support o� Rule 6(b) Motion <br />��t��,) COwnse� was unaware that the paz�ies kaad, z�egotiated an extension at that time. <br />�� �n Septer�bex 27, 2005, well ahead ofthe Octobez 31, 2005 deadline, Mr. <br />�O�IA�@If Nqblrif tt�d a written request to John Sikora, requ�sting an extension to the stipulation. It <br />N� �'� �olu�son's understanding that Iv�, S�coza wou]d have the State Attomey General's office <br />i� tho �mendment to the stapulation. <br />4. Accordin�g to �e e-mail message from John Sikora to Irvin Johnson dated <br />NOvnmber 2, 2005, as of that date, the stipulatioz� had not yet beez� amended. Although Mr, <br />Sikora had attempted to get an attorney from the State Attomey Genezal's o#�ice to dra.� tt,�e <br />amunctrncnt to the stipularioq al] the �tto�eys wexe busy. (See Exbabit �,) <br />5- Parotestant relied on Mr. Sikora's assu,rances that an amendment to the stipulation <br />would be prepar+ed on a timely basis by the Attorney Genezal's O�ce. <br />6. Aftec' receiving Mr. Sikora's e-mai1, Mz�. Johnson contacted Counsei on <br />November 10, 2005 and requested that she prepaze an amendxrient to stipulation. <br />7. On November 16, 2005, Counsel s�wke with John Sikora regarding the detaiis of <br />the stipulation to which the parties had agreed. <br />8. On November 18, 2005, a dra$ amez�dment was �ozwarded to Amy Stengel, State <br />Assistant Attorney General, counsel for the State and Division engineezs. <br />9• The final dxaft anaendment was signed by Attomey Stengel on Decezz�bez 6, 2005 <br />and filed on December 9, 2005 with the Motion to Approve Second Amendznent to Stipulation <br />arad Ageemen� <br />i 0. C.RC.P. 6(b) states: <br />When by these rules vr by a notice given thezeuz�der or by order of court an act is <br />zequired or aUowed to be done at or within a s�ecified time, the court �for cause <br />shown may, at any time �izi its discrebioz� (1) with or without motion or notice, <br />ozdez the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration� of the <br />period originally ptesotibed or as e�. by a previious order or (2) u�on motion <br />made a�et tb;e e�pu�ation o� We specified period perrnit the act to be done wk�ere <br />the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it naay not extend the <br />tinr�e foz ta�c�ing any action under Rules 59 and 60(b), except to the extent and <br />under the condxtio�as tb�ereim stated. <br />11. "Excusable neglect" occurs when there has been a�ailure to take �roper steps at <br />the proper time, not in consec�uence of cazelessness, but as tt�e xesult o�' sozz�e uz�avoidab�e <br />