Free Motion for Conference - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 66 Filed 1 1/O4/2004 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CLIFTON S. FREEDMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) C.A. No. 3:03CVl048 (PCD)
v. )
)
AMERICA ONLINE, INC., THE TOWN OF )
FAIRFIELD, DETECTIVE WILLIAM YOUNG )
AND DETECTIVE DAVID BENSEY )
(Individually and in their official capacities as )
police officers for the Town of Fairfield), )
)
Defendants. ) November 4, 2004
MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
The Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to schedule a status conference for the purpose
of setting a trial date. Pursuant to the Court’s modified scheduling order (dated April 2, 2004),
summary judgment motions were to be filed no later than June 15, 2004, and a joint trial
memorandum was to be filed by July 15, 2004. Presumably, the matter would have been
scheduled for trial as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar permitted.
On June l5, 2004, the Defendants filed a notice of having served a motion for partial
summary judgment on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff served a memorandum of law in opposition
thereto on July 16, 2004. Even though the Defendants chose not to file a reply brief, they did not
file their motion and the Plaintiffs memorandum in opposition with the Court until on or about
September 17, 2004, thereby delaying by two months the Court’s ability to rule on the motion.
The Defendants’ motion is pending.
Typically, the pendency of a summary judgment motion would delay the submission of a
joint trial memorandum and the scheduling of a trial date until the Court had ruled on the motion.
However, as the Court will recall, the Plaintiff has already received partial summary judgment on
DJK/32442/2/700760vl
1 1/03/oinim

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 66 Filed 1 1/O4/2004 Page 2 of 3
its claim that the Defendants violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA").
Thus, regardless of how the Court decides the Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion
(which does not seek reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the Plaintiff’ s ECPA claim), the
Plaintiff will be entitled to a trial on at least the damages portion of his ECPA claim.
Under these circumstances, the Plaintiff requests that, rather than delaying the submission
of the joint trial memorandum and scheduling of a trial date until the Court rules on the
Defendants’ pending motion for partial summary judgment, the Court should direct the parties to
submit such a joint trial memorandum and set a date for a pretrial conference at which the Court
and the parties can discuss setting a trial date.
THE PLAINT PF
p CLIFTON S. @E])MAN
By: 4/
Daniel J. Klau tl 957)
H. James Pickerstein (ct05094)
Calvin K. Woo (ct24951)
Pepe & Hazard LLP
Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103-4302
Phone: (860) 522-5175
Fax: (860) 522-2796
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Robert Y. Altchiler (ct24247)
The Law Offices of Robert Y. Altchiler
590 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 541-2422
nik/32442/2/700760vi
1 1/03/04-HRT/

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 66 Filed 1 1/O4/2004 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby Enify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by first class mail, postage
prepaid, this day of November, 2004 to the following:
Thomas Murtha, Esq.
Maher & Murtha, LLC
528 Clinton Avenue
P.O. Box 901
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Daniel J. Klan; [
DJK/32442/2/700760vl
1 l/03/04-HRT/