Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 79 Filed 09/01 /2006 Page 1 of 4 l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Q
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
_ HARTFORD DIVISION
---------------——--—------------------------—-—------ X u
GARY SESSION CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff : 303-CV-00943 (AWT)
VS. :
EDWIN RODRIGUEZ; STEPHEN : SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
COPPOLA; AND CITY OF NEW HAVEN `
Defendants :
...................................... I .............. X
AFFIDAVIT OF KAREN L. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF V
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56gf) MOTION
I, Karen L. Mayer, being duly sworn, deposes and states:
l. I am over the age of 18 and believe in the obligations of an oath.
2. I am counsel for the plaintiff and a member of good standing of the bar of this Court,
the bar of the State of Connecticut, and the bars of the State of New York and the
Q Southern District of New York. I submit this declaration, pursuant to Rule 56(i) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in support of plaintiff s request for discovery.
3. On the basis of a careful assessment of plaintiff s allegations and the current record, I
believe that, to present his claims fully and responsibly, plaintiff needs the discovery
soughtii for the reasons set forth in plaintiffs Rule 56(i) motion and memorandum and
for thelreasons detailed in plaintiff s counterstatement of material facts.
4. In particular, the discovery sought is necessary to determine, inter alia:
a) What information the defendants Rodriguez and Coppola added to the application
forlplaintiffs arrest after the first application was rejected?
{ 1

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 79 Filed O9/O1/2006 Page 2 of 4
b) VVhat information or records the defendants Rodriguez and Coppola relied upon
to make the statement in the application that the plaintiff had been "convicted for
numerous felonies?”
c) the defendants Rodriguez and Coppola omitted statements from their
affidavits in support of arrest warrant that would have exonerated plaintiff from
arrest, including: an admission by Juan Scruggs that his gun discharged and he
(not plaintiff) accidentally shot Anthony Lucky, Jr.; that there were three
Hispanic males in the vehicle and that Scruggs could recognize as Hispanic males
because he is half Hispanic; and that Scruggs could recognize them (the suspects)
again and make an identification?
d) Whether the infomiationand documentation that Sgt. Young, the Keeper of the
Rebords for the New Haven Police Department, failed and neglected to search for
produce at his deposition on August 23, 2006, and which he has promised to
search for and produce at the continuation of his deposition, contains further
suppressed infonnation germane to plaintiff" s claims of false imprisonment and
false arrest, such as more statements of third parties identifying persons other than
plaintiff as suspects? (A copy of the deposition of Sgt. Young is attached to the
plaintiffs Memorandum of Law as Exhibit C.)
5. In shorit, the plaintiff reasonably needs and should be allowed to complete discovery
withinithe next 90 days, and thereafter file substantive responsive pleadings to the
T 2

Case 3:O3Â¥cv-00943-AWT Document 79 Filed O9/O1/2006 Page 3 of 4
motion for summary judgment, so long as the disputed requests currently pending ‘
before the court as on file are heard and determined shortly.
6. The plaintiff must take and should be allowed to pursue the depositions of the other
police witnesses as set forth in the memorandum of law once the information and
documentation sought is produced. The conclusion of these depositions should de
facto end discovery, so long as the pending disputes on Hle have been determined and
timely complied with by defendants, if the court so orders.
7. I declare under the penalty of perjury that that foregoing is true and correct.
`
K /s/ Karen L. Mayer
p Karen L. Mayer
Subscribed and sworn to before `
me this lst day of September, 2006.
/s/ Philip Russell
Commissioner ofthe Superior Court
. 3

Case 3:O3;cv-OO943—AWT Document 79 Filed O9/O1/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
. I hereby certify that on September l, 2006, a copy of the foregoing was tiled
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic tiling. Notice of the
filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court’s electronic Hling system or
by mail to anyone Lmable to accept electronic tiling as indicated on the Notice of Electronic
Filing. Parties may access this tiling through the court’s CM/ECF system.
BY /s/ Karen L. Mayer
Karen L. Mayer
Philip Russell, LLC
66 Field Point Road
_ Greenwich, CT 06830
203-661-4200
· Federal Bar No. CT 26555
j 4