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

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 106 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CLARENCE R. COLLINS, IR., et al. : 3:03—CV—945 (CFD)
Plaintiffs,
V. :
OLIN CORPORATION, et al.
Defendants. OCTOBER 19, 2004
CONSENTED—TO MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
The defendants, on consent of the plaintiffs, hereby move the Court to modify the
Scheduling Order in this case, so as to allow additional time for the tiling of and responses to the
defendants’ motions based upon the issues of successor liability and sovereign immunity. In
support, movants state as follows:
1. In support of the original Scheduling Order, the parties had agreed that certain
issues would be addressed early in the case. These would include the plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification, and motions by the defendants for summary judgment based upon the theories of
the claimed lack of any successor liability (in the case of defendant Olin Corporation), and the
claimed application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity (in the case of defendant Town of
Hamden). The parties agreed that to the extent that these defenses needed to be addressed in the
context of a summary judgment motion, these motions would be coordinated in order to
streamline the schedule for the parties and the court.
2. In the July 30, 2004 Assented to Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, the parties
represented that: (I) discovery on successor liability and sovereign immunity has been completed
except for the continuation of the deposition of Olin’s F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) witness and (2) the
;’;§;‘;’S:;*‘gt?g;;“'€ HALLORAN Ph0ne(860)5_22—6l03
H¤¤f¤·~¤»<¥r <>¤¤<>3 dz SAGE lrlrlll ifZS(Er?¤i>256ii»g0O6

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 106 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 2 of 4
plaintiffs’ inspection of the documents in the vault of the Hamden Town Hall. The former will
proceed in accordance with paragraph 3 below and the latter has been completed.
3. The continued deposition of Olin’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness as ordered by
Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith on August 17, 2004, has not yet taken place due to an
agreement between Olin’s counsel and plaintiffs’ counsel to coordinate it with the scheduling of
plaintiff depositions so that Olin’s out of state counsel would minimize the number of trips to
Connecticut.
4. It is anticipated at this time that depositions of the putative class representatives
will be commencing in November of 2004. Accordingly, it is further anticipated that Mr.
J acl 5. For this reason, movants, with the consent of plaintiffs, seek a modification of the
scheduling order. Under such modification, the Defendants will tile their motions for summary
judgment on the issues of successor liability (Olin) and sovereign immunity (Hamden) on or
before December 1, 2004. Plaintiffs will be obliged to tile their opposition to such motions on or
before February l, 2005. Thereafter, Defendants will be required to file their Replies on or
before February 15, 2005.
6. Defense counsel have conferred with counsel for the plaintiffs, and they are in
agreement with this motion and the proposed modifications.
Accordingly, the defendants respectfully request that the Court modify the Scheduling
Order in the case to provide as follows:
l. Olin will tile its motion for summary judgment solely with respect to the issue of
successor liability on December l, 2004.
- 2 ..
?;;ES;?5‘;"gt§g;a"€ if HALLORAN Phone (860)52Z-6103
H¤·~00·r0, Cr 00103 dz SAGE llll.,lP itiZS(iii¤i)2iii>`i)OO6

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 106 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 3 of 4
2. The Town will file its motion for summary judgment solely with respect to the
issue of sovereign immunity on December 1, 2004.
3. All memoranda and supporting materials opposing these motions for summary
judgment will be tiled by February 1, 2005.
4. Any reply memoranda and supporting material in further support ofthe summary
judgment motions will be served and tiled on or before February 15, 2005.
5. That the remaining discovery deadlines in the prior Scheduling Order, as amended
by this court on August 18, 2004, remain the same.
THE DEFENDANTS
TOWN OF HAMDEN
J//,,»~”V€//,,/ V
- By ( ..../al »·/l
'? . Ca ino“ .,
?F5l;eral&B/aétct02747
M Joseph G. Fortner, Jr.
Federal Bar #ct 04602
HALLORAN & SAGE LLP
One Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
(860) 522-6103
OLIN CORPORATION
, / x $4/
By /4 M ./.T
Michael H. Wetmore
Federal Bar #ct248 99
Joel B. Samson
Federal Bar # ct24898
HUSCH & EPPENBERGER, LLC
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 480—l500
— 3 »— *4* f~"*· nm
gg; ggjjygtfggatc HALLORAN Phone my 522-m
I-lz1rtlbrd,CT 06102 tgt SAGE lLll.1ll3’ .ij;iS(%0Q>2?iEi>';)OO6

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 106 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 19th day of October, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was
served by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, upon all counsel and pro se parties of record, as
follows:
Monte E. Frank, Esq.
David B. Zabel, Esq.
Alison K. Clark, Esq.
Cohen and Wolf, P.C.
158 Deer Hill Avenue
Danbury, CT 06810
Mark Roberts, Esq.
Andrew Rainer, Esq. ~
McRoberts, Roberts & Rainer L.L.P.
101 Merrimac Street
Boston, MA 02114
Neil T. Leifer, Esq.
Michael A. Lesser, Esq.
Brad J. Mitchell, Esq.
David C. Strouss, Esq.
Thornton & Naumes, LLP
100 Summer Street, 30m Floor
Boston, MA 02110
/L}/7; / »·’’ "
J ose;}h#é};:"'P`bpiier ii
. /3/r"
60482/_l DOC 1%
- 4 L
gl; ;;f5:l;lSq‘f“° HALLORAN Phone (860) 522-6103
· ‘ '°° F X 860 548-0006
x~161—lr6m, cr 06103 & SAGE 11,11,111 J§‘r,S(NO_)26lO5