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

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 561

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________: P.J., et al.,

Civil No. 2:91Cv180(RNC)

RULING AND ORDER On March 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to Remedy Substantial Non-Compliance with the Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Motion for Order") previously reached in this case. See Doc. # 549. On March 21, 2008, Judge Chatigny See Doc. # 551.

referred that motion to the undersigned.

The undersigned scheduled oral argument on the Motion for Order for June 26, 2008. See Doc. # 552. On May 8, 2008, the

defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time, by which they seek an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' Motion for Order and a delay of the scheduled oral argument until after August 25, 2008. See Doc. # 556. Judge Chatigny referred that See Doc. # 556.

motion to the undersigned on May 8, 2008.

The plaintiffs object to defendant's Motion for Extension of Time. See Doc. # 558. On May 28, 2008, the undersigned

scheduled a Telephonic Status Conference to discuss scheduling and related issues. See Doc. # 557. During the conference, the

parties agreed that before the plaintiffs' Motion for Order can

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 561

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 2 of 2

be resolved, the court must first address questions regarding discovery. The plaintiffs claim they are entitled to discovery; Therefore, it is hereby

the defendants oppose discovery. ORDERED:

1. The hearing scheduled for June 26, 2008 is continued and shall be rescheduled in due course. 2. The defendants' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. # 556) is DENIED. 3. Regarding plaintiffs' assertion that they are entitled to additional discovery prior a hearing on their Motion for Order, the 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. June 18, 2008. SO ORDERED. Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this 2nd day of June, 2008. _________/s/_________________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge Any such motion shall be filed on or before