1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

CASE NO: 0:22-cv-62225-RAR

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO OPPOSE 

THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANTS 

RTX CORPORATION AND THE BOEING COMPANY1

 Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, hereby files this Motion to Extend Plaintiff’s Deadline to Oppose any Motions for 

Summary Judgment Filed by Defendants RTX Corporation (“RTX”) and The Boeing Company

(“Boeing”). In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 

 1. Trial is currently set to begin on April 8, 2024. (ECF. Doc. 94).

1 On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend the Deadline to Oppose the Summary Judgment 

Motions Filed by Defendants RTX Corporation and The Boeing Company and was remiss in including 

within Plaintiff’s 7.1(a)(3) certificate the details of Plaintiff’s efforts to confer with Defendants. Plaintiff 

apologizes for the oversight and has provided an amended Rule 7.1(a)(3) certificate, which is appended 

hereto.

TERRI D. COLE, 

Personal Representative of 

The Estate of WINFRED L. CROSBY,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES 

CORPORATION f/k/a UNITED 

TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and 

THE BOEING COMPANY, 

Defendants. 

Case 0:22-cv-62225-JB Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 1 of 6
2

2. Pursuant to the Order Granting the Parties’ January 9, 2024 Agreed Motion as to 

Plaintiff’s Deadline to Oppose any Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Boeing and RTX

(“Agreed Motion”) (ECF Doc. 207), Plaintiff’s oppositions to any dispositive motions filed in this 

matter are currently due on January 26, 2024. (ECF Doc. 208). At the time the Agreed Motion 

was filed, the in-place deadline for submission of the joint pre-trial stipulation, proposed jury 

instructions and verdict form, and motions in limine was January 23, 2024. (ECF Doc. 94). 

3. Subsequently, on January 16, 2024, Defendants’ unopposed Motion for Extension 

of Time to Submit Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation, Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form, and 

Motions in Limine was granted, thereby extending the January 23 deadline to March 8, 2024. (ECF 

Doc. 219). 

4. Since such time that the January 9 Agreed Motion was filed and granted, Boeing 

and RTX have also served supplemental responses to the discovery requests that were the subject 

of the Hon. Jared M. Strauss’s Discovery Order (“Discovery Order”) granting Plaintiff’s Motions 

to Compel Boeing and RTX. (ECF Doc. 168). The same order also instructed the Parties to confer 

regarding a reasonable extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to any summary judgment motions 

filed by RTX and Boeing to ensure that Plaintiff had the benefit of all information compelled by 

the Discovery Order in advance of having to oppose Defendants’ summary judgment motions.

 5. The Parties are currently and actively conferring about the (non-compliant)

supplemental responses provided by Boeing and RTX that are the subject of the court’s Discovery 

Order. Additionally, due to the timing of RTX’s receipt of the transcript of its corporate 

representative, RTX has yet to provide to Plaintiff with the redactions it has advised Plaintiff are 

forthcoming in accord with the Protective Order (ECF Docs. 104-1, 107) issued in this case, and 

Boeing only recently provided its redactions.

Case 0:22-cv-62225-JB Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 2 of 6
3

6. In view of the above, Plaintiff has requested that Defendants confirm their agreement 

with a request to the Court for a further extension to the deadline by which Plaintiff is to respond 

to Defendants’ summary judgment motions through February 23, 2024, which is reasonable and 

appropriate,2 particularly in view of the fact that the extension will not affect any other deadlines

nor impact the newly issued March 8, 2023 deadline for submission of the joint pre-trial

stipulation, proposed jury instructions and verdict form and motions in limine. (See ECF Doc.

219).

 7. Plaintiff had hoped to receive Defendants’ position concerning Plaintiff’s requested 

extension prior to filing this motion but Defendants have advised that they are not in a position to 

state as of the time of this filing whether they are in agreement (or not) with the requested relief. 

To ensure that this requested extension is before the Court in advance of the currently in-place 

January 26 deadline, Plaintiff is filing the instant motion now.

 8. Attached as Exhibit A is a Proposed Order providing that the deadline for Plaintiff to 

oppose the motions for summary judgment filed by Boeing and RTX be extended through 

February 23, 2024. 

 9. For the reasons set forth above, good cause exists for the requested extension and the 

granting of this motion will not cause any prejudice to any party to this action.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, respectfully requests an Order granting the foregoing Motion, and 

such further relief the Court deems just and proper.

2 Defendants’ respective replies in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment would then fall due on 

March 1, 2024, also in advance of the March 8, 2024 deadline for the Parties’ joint pre-trial submission. 

Additionally, it is noted that a February 23 deadline to oppose Defendants’ summary judgment motion 

would also fall, as is traditional, after completion of the supplemental expert discovery provided for in the 

Court’s order granting Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Court’s Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Schedule 

to Extend the Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery and File Daubert Motions (ECF Doc. 201). 

Case 0:22-cv-62225-JB Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 3 of 6
4

Dated: January 23, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Rebecca S. Vinocur

Rebecca S. Vinocur

REBECCA S. VINOCUR, P.A.

Florida Bar No. 0529915

Email: rvinocur@rsv-law.com

5915 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 14

Coral Gables, FL 33146

and

SIMMONS HANLY CONROY

Michael K. Hibey

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Email: mhibey@simmonsfirm.com

One Court Street 

Alton, IL 62002

Telephone: (618) 259-2222

Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that in advance 

of filing this motion Plaintiff’s counsel made reasonable efforts to confer with counsel for 

Defendants RTX Corporation and The Boeing Company (“Defendants”), who are the only parties 

affected by the relief sought in this motion, as part of Plaintiff’s good faith efforts to resolve the 

issues raised in this motion. These efforts and conferrals included a telephonic conversation 

between Plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for RTX on the afternoon of 1/12/24; email 

correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel to RTX’s counsel on 1/19/24 sent mid-morning seeking 

a time to verbally confer; email correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel to counsel for Boeing on 

1/19/24 sent mid-morning seeking a time to verbally confer; a latter afternoon telephonic 

conversation between counsel for Plaintiff and Boeing’s counsel on 1/22/24; an early evening 

attempted call, followed by an email from counsel for Plaintiff to RTX’s counsel on 1/22/24 

seeking a time to verbally confer; email correspondence to counsel from Plaintiff to RTX at 1:41 

Case 0:22-cv-62225-JB Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 4 of 6
5

p.m. confirming Plaintiff’s counsel’s availability to speak at 6:00 p.m. on 1/23/24; email 

correspondence to counsel for Boeing and RTX sent at 1:58 p.m. on 1/23/24 attaching a copy of a 

draft motion and proposed order with a request that counsel provide confirmation by the end of 

the day that they were amenable to the motion and proposed order being filed; follow-up email 

correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel to Boeing’s counsel the evening of 1/23/24; email 

correspondence to Boeing and RTX yesterday (1/24/24) at 12:54 p.m. again requesting 

confirmation of their position; at 1:21 p.m. Defendants responded via email and conditioned their 

agreement of Plaintiff’s requested briefing extension through 2/23/24 on an extension of the trial 

date, as well as the in-place deadlines, to include allowing Defendants to identify and call an 

additional unidentified medical causation expert (i.e. radiologist); additional emails were 

exchanged between counsel on 1/24/24; also on 1/24/24, Plaintiff’s counsel called and requested 

a return call from liaison counsel for Defendants on this issue, with neither liaison counsel nor 

Defendants’ other counsel making themselves available yesterday for a call; this morning 

(1/25/24) at 8:48 a.m. Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email requesting a time to confer telephonically 

and requested that Defendants provide by 10:00 a.m. their position on Plaintiff’s requested 

extension of time through 2/23/24 to oppose Defendants’ summary judgment motions. As of the 

time of this filing, Plaintiff has not been able to resolve the issues raised in this motion. 

/s/ Rebecca S. Vinocur

Rebecca S. Vinocur

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 24, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will generate Notices of Electronic Filing 

to All Counsel of Record.

/s/ Rebecca S. Vinocur

Rebecca S. Vinocur

Case 0:22-cv-62225-JB Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 5 of 6
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

CASE NO: 0:22-cv-62225-RAR

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S DEADLINE TO 

OPPOSE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANTS RTX 

CORPORATION AND THE BOEING COMPANY

 THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court by Motion of Plaintiff, and the Court 

having been fully advised of this request, it is hereby,

 ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. The deadline by which Plaintiff is to oppose any motions for summary judgment 

filed by Boeing and RTX is extended through February 23, 2024

IT SO ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this ____ day of January 2024.

________________________

United States District Judge 

TERRI D. COLE, 

Personal Representative of 

The Estate of WINFRED L. CROSBY,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES 

CORPORATION f/k/a UNITED 

TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and 

THE BOEING COMPANY, 

Defendants. 

Case 0:22-cv-62225-JB Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 6 of 6