UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

____________________________________

)

INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS )

AND ELECTRONICS, INC., et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

TOWN OF ALTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE, ) Docket No. 1:07-CV-82-JL

Defendant, )

)

and )

)

DAVID SLADE AND MARILYN SLADE, )

Intervenor-Defendants )

____________________________________)

PARTIAL OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

NOW COME the Plaintiffs, Industrial Communications and Electronics, Inc., RCC

Atlantic, Inc. d/b/a Unicel, and U.S.C.O.C. of New Hampshire RSA #2, Inc. d/b/a U.S. Cellular

(collectively “the Applicants”), by and through their attorneys, Devine, Millimet & Branch,

Professional Association, and object, in part, to the Slades’ Motion for an Extension of Time, as

follows:

1. The Applicants and the Town filed a Joint Motion for Expedited Hearing on June

17, 2011, which was discussed during the telephonic conference held on June 20, 2011. The

Court expressed a strong preference to proceed on the Applicants’ pending Motion for Summary

Judgment without any additional submissions from any party, although it indicated it would

consider additional submissions on the limited issue of additional alternatives considered by the

Applicants after the close of the summary judgment record, and also stated that it would allow

Case 1:07-cv-00082-JL Document 95 Filed 06/23/11 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

the Slades to file a response to the Joint Motion before making a final decision in this regard.

Counsel for the Slades indicated he would file such a response “by the end of the week.”

2. There also was a discussion about the timing of the hearing. Counsel for the

Applicants stated they would prefer a hearing on the summary judgment motion to take place as

soon as possible, for the reasons explained in the Joint Motion for Expedited Hearing filed on

June 17, 2011. Counsel for the Slades advised the Court that he could be ready for a hearing on

the motion for summary judgment in “60 days,” following which all parties and the Court agreed

that a hearing would occur on August 26, 2011. Although no order has yet been issued in this

regard, it was the Applicants’ understanding that this date was firm; the only open issue was

whether the Slades would ask for the opportunity to make additional submissions or not.

3. Two days later, counsel for the Slades filed a motion to withdraw and new

counsel filed appearances. New counsel then requested an extension of time until July 12, 2011

to respond to the Joint Motion.

4. The Applicants have no objection to allowing new counsel until July 12, 2011 to

respond to the Joint Motion, but they do object to any further delay in the hearing of the pending

Motion for Summary Judgment, presently scheduled for August 26, 2011, and ask that the

hearing proceed as agreed to. New counsel has two months to prepare for oral argument on the

Motion, which is ample time. In addition, the right of the Applicants to have their claims

resolved and the policy of “expedited” relief expressly set forth in the applicable statute, see 47

U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v), should not be frustrated merely because the Slades have decided, after

more than four years of litigation, to retain new counsel for reasons apparently unrelated to their

original counsel’s availability.

Case 1:07-cv-00082-JL Document 95 Filed 06/23/11 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

5. The Applicants note that the Slades mention something in their Motion about

being “focused on settlement negotiations” with the Town for several weeks. The Applicants are

completely unaware of any such negotiations, which is odd given that as plaintiffs they are the

only parties in this case that possess claims for relief, and do not understand how their claims

could be settled without their participation and consent.

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, the Applicants respectfully request that this

Honorable Court enter an order:

A. Scheduling a hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment on August 26, 2011,

as previously agreed among all counsel and the Court;

B. Allowing the Slades until July 12, 2011 to respond to the Joint Motion filed on

June 17, 2011; and,

C. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS AND

ELECTRONICS, INC., RCC ATLANTIC, INC.

d/b/a UNICEL and U.S.C.O.C. OF NEW

HAMPSHIRE RSA #2, INC. d/b/a U.S. CELLULAR

By their attorneys,

DEVINE, MILLIMET & BRANCH,

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

Dated: June 24, 2011 By: /s/ Steven E. Grill

Steven E. Grill, Esquire (No. 7896)

111 Amherst Street

Manchester, NH 03101

(603) 669-1000

SGrill@DevineMillimet.com

Case 1:07-cv-00082-JL Document 95 Filed 06/23/11 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to counsel of record this day via the

Court’s Electronic Case Filing system.

Date: June 24, 2011 By: /s/ Steven E. Grill

Steven E. Grill, Esquire (No. 7896)

Case 1:07-cv-00082-JL Document 95 Filed 06/23/11 Page 4 of 4