Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00230-SRU

Document 93

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CLAUDIOUS CHANNER; Plaintiff VS. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; JANET RENO; CITY OF HARTFORD; JAMES MARKOWSKI; DETECTIVE PERODEAU; DETECTIVE MERRITT; DETECTIVE WOLF; DETECTIVE ELLIS; SERGEANT CAGIANELLO, ET AL Defendants

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00 CV230 (SRU)(WIG)

April 1, 2004

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY The plaintiff has set forth in his opposition to the defendant's Motion for Stay that discovery is needed to show that the City has a custom and policy of withholding documents from the plaintiff (Opposition, p. 5) and that the discovery is needed to show that police officers, inspectors and prosecutors were fabricating information to obtain arrest warrants, along with using excessive force against minorities in the City. (Opposition, p. 6). As such, the plaintiff alleges that discovery is needed to satisfy a Monell claim against the City. The defendant, City of Hartford, opposes these unfounded allegations and requests that the Court focus the plaintiff on the sole remaining claim of false imprisonment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based on this sole remaining claim of false

Case 3:00-cv-00230-SRU

Document 93

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 2 of 4

imprisonment against the City of Hartford, the discovery of documents continually requested by the plaintiff are overly broad on their face, overly burdensome, oppressive, unreasonable, outside the scope of permissible discovery and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff's entire argument has centered on documents which he has not been provided; however, the defendant argues that they are far outside the scope of the pending claim. In addition to the legal support set forth in the Motion to Stay, the defendants argue that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), a district court may stay discovery upon a showing of "good cause." Thrower v. Pozzi, 2002 WL 91612 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2002) (quoting Siemens Credit Corp. v. American Transit Ins. Co., 2000 WL 534497, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2000)). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), the Court also has the authority to "make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from ... expense." As such, the Court may stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. Johnson v. New York Univ. School or Education, 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Courts in this district have held "that a stay of discovery is appropriate pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion where the motion 'appear[s] to have substantial grounds' or, stated another way, 'do[es] not appear to be without foundation in law.' " Id. In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, 2002 WL 88278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002) (quoting Chrysler Capital Corp. v. Century Power Corp., 137 F.R.D. 209, 209-10 (S.D.N.Y.1991)) (citing Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 203 -2-

Case 3:00-cv-00230-SRU

Document 93

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 3 of 4

F.R.D. 92, 2001 WL 396422, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2001); Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 1996 WL 101277, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 7, 1996)). In granting a stay, courts generally consider "the breadth of discovery sought and the burden of responding to it." Anti-Monopoly, Inc., 1996 WL 101277, at *3. Wherefore, the defendant, City of Hartford, requests that the Court stay discovery pending a ruling on the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. DEFENDANTS, CITY OF HARTFORD

By__________________________ Eric P. Daigle Fed. Bar No. ct23486 HALLORAN & SAGE LLP One Goodwin Square Hartford, CT 06103 Tel: (860) 522-6103 [email protected] Its Attorneys

-3-

Case 3:00-cv-00230-SRU

Document 93

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that on this 1st day of April, 2004, the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, to: Claudious W. Channer Inmate #15148 P.O. Box 100 Somers, CT 06071 Richard T. Biggar, Esq. Attorney General's Office Public Safety & Special Revenue MacKensie Hall 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 David J. Sheldon Assistant United States Attorney P.O. Box 1824 New Haven, CT 06508-1824

________________________ Eric P. Daigle
533932.1(HS-FP)

-4-