Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 47

Filed 07/06/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ________________________________________________ BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM ) NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and ) MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 3:03 CV 00644 (CFD) ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and ) AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., ) ) Defendants ) ________________________________________________) JULY 2, 2004

MOTION TO IMMEDIATELY COMMENCE DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs Bruce Charles Ryan, Russell William Newton, Robert Fitzpatrick, and Merit Capitol Associates, Inc. (collectively "Ryan Plaintiffs") move this Court for an Order permitting the parties to immediately commence discovery. Defendant is seeking to delay the initiation of discovery for another six months through January 10, 2005. The Ryan Plaintiffs believe that such a delay is wholly unwarranted and will impede the ability of the Plaintiffs to prosecute this case or position the case for a reasonable settlement. This action was commenced on April 9, 2003 and to date no discovery has been undertaken solely because of disputes concerning the negotiation of and then

1

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 47

Filed 07/06/2004

Page 2 of 4

interpretation of parties' Rule 26(f) Reports. After the action was initially filed, Defendants requested an opportunity to attempt to settle the underlying claim and therefore sought several extensions of time to plead and delayed holding a Rule 26(f) conference. Thereafter, the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference in September 2003 at which time the Defendants requested that the Plaintiffs amend their Complaints to reflect the settlement of the underlying claim. The Ryan Plaintiffs as well as the Gwynn Plaintiffs in the consolidated action complied with this request. The parties then sought to obtain agreement on a Rule 26(f) Report but Defendants simply failed to respond. Accordingly, the Ryan Plaintiffs filed a Rule 26(f) Report unilaterally in January 2004. After a conference with the Court, the parties conferred and entered a Joint 26(f) Report dated May 5, 2004. At that time, the parties agreed that discovery would commence 30 days after the completion of a settlement conference then scheduled for June 7, 2004 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Smith. Plaintiffs had already determined that that date was not convenient for the Ryan Plaintiffs who had a conflicting NASD obligation. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel requested and received a rescheduling of the conference before Magistrate Judge Smith to June 17, 2004. Unfortunately, due to confusion about the consolidation of the Gwynn case, counsel for the Gwynn Plaintiffs did not receive notice of the new date until only shortly before that conference. At that time the Gwynn Plaintiffs were unavailable to attend the settlement conference in person. In response to a motion to reschedule the settlement conference, Magistrate Judge Smith indicated that his

2

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 47

Filed 07/06/2004

Page 3 of 4

first available date was in December of 2004 and the parties have now agreed to a date of December 10, 2004 for that settlement conference. Defendant now takes the position that the parties cannot engage in any discovery until 30 days after that settlement conference is completed in December 2004. Accordingly, Defendants contend that the parties will have to wait an additional six months before any discovery can proceed in this case. Defendants' position will not advance settlement and can only obstruct the orderly proceeding of this case. All the currently agreed upon deadlines in the Joint 26(f) Report would become inoperative if discovery was delayed for another six months. Moreover, since this case has been pending for more than one year already, it makes no sense to continue to delay discovery pending a settlement conference which is now more than six months away. Wherefore, the Ryan Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the parties leave to immediately commence discovery. PLAINTIFFS, BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES INC., By__________/s/____________________ Peter M. Nolin (ct06223) Sandak Hennessey & Greco LLP 970 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06905 (203) 425-4200 (203) 325-8608 (fax) [email protected]

3

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 47

Filed 07/06/2004

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via first class mail, postage prepaid, on July 2, 2004, to the following counsel: James R. Hawkins, II, Esq. Finn Dixon & Herling, LLP One Landmark Square, Suite 1400 Stamford, CT 06901-2689 Mario DiNatale Silver Golub & Teitell LLP 184 Atlantic Street P.O.Box 389 Stamford CT 06904-0389 ______/s/_____________ Peter M. Nolin

4