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

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD

Document 251

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CLARENCE R. COLLINS, JR., et al Plaintiffs, VS. OLIN CORPORATION, et al Defendants

: : : : : : : :

3:03-CV-945 (CFD)

JOINT MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER1 Pursuant to the Court's Order, dated April 15, 2008, and the Court's instruction during the telephonic conference of Counsel with the Court on May 19, 2008, the Parties hereby submit a revised Scheduling Order2 to extend the period for fact and expert discovery as follows: 1. Fact discovery related to liability and damages for the trial concerning the claims of the Class Members set out in paragraph 2 below shall be completed by November 30, 2008. 2. For purposes of conducting discovery related to damages, the Parties propose to select eighteen (18) representative Class Members of which each of the three (3) Subclasses will be represented by six (6) Class Members.3 The Parties propose that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant each independently select three representative members from each Subclass by July 20, 2008. The Parties agree that the damages evidence presented at trial shall focus on the damages allegedly sustained by the 18 designated representatives. The parties have reached an impasse about one aspect of this selection process. It is
By joining in this motion, Defendant does not waive, but rather expressly reserves, any objections that Defendant has with respect to the propriety of class certification in this case and any due process and 7th Amendment issues that may be presented in this case. 2 The applicable Scheduling Order was approved by the Court on November 13, 2006 (Docket #188). 3 The class representatives will be notified and consulted about this pretrial and trial procedure and the Class Notice will advise members of the class of these procedures.
1

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD

Document 251

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 2 of 4

Plaintiffs' position that parties should be permitted to select the 18 representatives solely from among the named class representatives. On the other hand, Defendant believes that because discovery and trial with respect to these 18 representatives will encompass individual issues (such as damages), that the parties should be permitted to select the 18 representatives from among all class members; however, this selection shall be made by the parties based solely on currently available information. The parties ask that the Court resolve this issue.4 3. By June 30, 2008, the Plaintiffs shall provide Defendant with a brief summary identifying the topics and a general description of anticipated areas of testimony by Plaintiffs' experts. By July 31, 2008, Defendant shall provide a similar summary to Plaintiffs. 4. By January 30, 2009, the Plaintiffs and Defendant shall simultaneously disclose their trial experts and provide the reports set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rebuttal experts and reports shall be disclosed by February 28, 2009. 5. All discovery related to experts shall be completed by March 31, 2009. 6. All Motions for Summary Judgment will be filed by April 30, 2009; oppositions will be filed by May 29, 2009; and any reply brief will be filed by June 12, 2009. 7. Summary judgment motions shall be heard at a date set by the Court after June 12, 2009. The parties will appear before the Court for a pre-trial conference at a date and time set by the Court after the ruling on any motion for summary judgment filed in accordance with paragraph 6. In the event that no summary judgment motion has been filed, the Parties will appear before the Court for a pre-trial conference at a date and time set by the Court. 8. This case will be trial ready within 60 days of the pre-trial conference.
4

Both parties intend to file a short brief on this issue on, or before May 29, 2008.

2

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD

Document 251

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 3 of 4

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request the Court approve the schedule proposed by the parties as set forth above.

Respectfully submitted,

For the Plaintiffs: By__/s/ Mark W. Roberts____________ Mark Roberts, Esq. ct25062 [email protected] McRoberts, Roberts & Rainer LLP 53 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Tele: (617) 722-8222 Fax: (617) 720-2320

David B. Zabel, Esq. ct01382 [email protected] Monte E. Frank, Esq. ct13666 [email protected] Cohen and Wolf, PC 1115 Broad Street Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Tele: (203) 368-0211 Fax: (203) 394-9901 Neil T. Leifer, Esq. [email protected] David C. Strouss, Esq. [email protected] Thornton & Naumes L.L.P 100 Summer Street, 30th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Tele: (617) 720-1333 Fax: (617) 720-2445

3

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD

Document 251

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 4 of 4

For the Defendant: ___/s/ Michael H. Wetmore_______ Michael H. Wetmore, Esq. (ct24899) Joel B. Samson, Esq. (ct24898) Omri E. Praiss, Esq. (ECF registration pending) Husch, Blackwell, Sanders LLP 190 Carondelet Plz Ste 600 Saint Louis MO 63105-3433 Mark S. Baldwin, Esq. Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP 185 Asylum St Fl 38 Hartford CT 06103-3408 Dated: May 23, 2008

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 23, 2008, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.

__/s/ Monte Frank____________

4