Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 564

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT P.J., et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al. Defendants. : : : : : : CIVIL NO. 291CV00180 (RNC)

JUNE 23, 2008

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

The Plaintiffs renew their Motion for an Enlargement of Time from June 18, 2008 to July 15, 2008 to file a motion that describes each type of discovery Plaintiffs seek in support of their Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement as ordered on June 2, 2008 [Doc. #561]. In support of this motion, the Plaintiffs represent the following: 1. On June 2, 2008, the Court entered an Order that required Plaintiffs to confer with Defendants in a good faith attempt to resolve discover disputes and file a motion by no later than June 18, 2008 that sets forth with particularity each type of discovery sought and the authority for granting the discovery request. [Doc. # 561]. That Order states, in relevant part, [T]he parties shall confer in good faith in an effort to resolve any discovery issues. After conferring in good faith, if outstanding discovery issues still exist, the plaintiffs shall file a motion in which they set forth with particularity each type of discovery sought and the authority for granting their discovery request. Any such motion shall be filed on or before June 18, 2008. [Doc. # 561]. 2. On June 2, 2008 the undersigned counsel and counsel for the Defendants, Darren

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 564

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 2 of 5

Cunningham, Esq., had a telephone conversation to discuss the process that would be followed to identify Plaintiffs' discovery needs and Defendants' objections to one or more of those discovery requests. During that conversation it was agreed that the best procedure to identify which types of discovery Plaintiffs were seeking and whether Defendants objected to such discovery was as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' counsel would file discovery motions and requests identifying Plaintiffs' discovery promptly; (2) Defendants' would file appropriate responses or objections, and (3) appropriate motions would be filed with the Court to compel responses to Plaintiffs' discovery to the extent discovery disputes could not be worked out by counsel. 3. On June 12, 2008 Plaintiffs served a Motion for Disclosure and Production and Notices of Deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. on the Defendants' Exhibit A. The depositions of Defendants' officials and employees were set to begin on July 3, 2008. Exhibit A. 4. Also, on June 18, 2008, Plaintiffs indicated in a letter to Attorney Cunningham that they intended to review a sample of class members who had been reclassified and exited from the class, requested CSDE's cooperation in completing that review and asked that Defendants indicate whether they would object to the requested discovery. Exhibit B. 5. On June 12, 2006 the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time requesting an enlargement of time from June 18, 2008 to July 15, 2008 to file the motion describing each type of discovery Plaintiffs seek in support of their Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs indicated in their motion that despite good faith attempts they were unable to reach Defendants' counsel to discuss his position on the Motion for Enlargement of Time. [Doc. #

2

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 564

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 3 of 5

562]. 6. On June 18, 2008 the Court denied the Motion for Enlargement of Time without prejudice on the ground Plaintiffs failed to state why they cannot comply with the Court ordered deadline. [Doc. # 563]. 7. On June 19, 2008 the Defendants served on the Plaintiffs a letter indicating that Defendants' counsel was working with the Connecticut Department of Education on a response to Plaintiffs' discovery and would soon disclose CSDE's view with respect to each discovery request. Exhibit C. Defendants indicated further that because key personnel in the Connecticut Department of Education were not available through June 27, 2008, a response to Plaintiffs' Discovery would not be available until the week beginning June 30, 2008. Id. 8. Plaintiffs' counsel contacted Attorney Cunningham by telephone to discuss the Court's denial of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time and the date by which Defendants' position on the Plaintiffs' Discovery requests could be available. 9. According to Attorney Cunningham, Defendants' position will not be available until the week beginning June 30, 2008. 10. At the present time, Plaintiffs cannot determine which of Plaintiffs' specific discovery requests will be subject to an objection. Therefore, they do not know to what extent discovery disputes exist, or whether they are able to resolve their discovery issues with Defendants. Moreover, they cannot at the present time identify with particularity the discovery disputes the Court must resolve because good faith attempts to resolve their differences with Defendants were not successful, or the legal basis for their position that the objectionable

3

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 564

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 4 of 5

discovery should be ordered. 11. Plaintiffs cannot comply with the Court order of June 2, 2008 until Defendants make their position on Plaintiffs' discovery requests known. 12. Attorney Cunningham has further indicated that he consents to an enlargement of time to July 15, 2008 to file the motion contemplated by the Court order dated June 2, 2008. 13. This is the second Motion for Enlargement of Time requested with respect to this time limitation. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time from June 18, 2008 to July 15, 2008 to, following good faith attempts by the parties to resolve their differences, file a motion that describes with particularity each type of discovery Plaintiffs seek in support of their Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement, and the basis for a Court order requiring compliance with any such discovery requests.

PLAINTIFFS, By /s/ David C. Shaw David C. Shaw, Esq. The Law Offices of David C. Shaw, LLC Fed. Bar No. ct05239 34 Jerome Ave., Suite 210 Bloomfield, CT 06002 Tel. (860) 242-1238 Fax. (860) 242-1507 Email: [email protected]

4

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 564

Filed 06/23/2008

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 23, 2008 a copy of the foregoing Motion was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

Darren P. Cunningham Assistant Attorney General State of Connecticut P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141

/s/ David C. Shaw David C. Shaw, Esq.

5