Free Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 77 Filed O9/O1/2006 Page 1 of 3 an
H UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HARTFORD DIVISION »
-------------------- e ----------------------—--------- X
GARY SESSION CIVIL ACTION NO.
Anlv Plaintiff : 303-CV-00943 (AWT)
EDWIN RODRIGUEZ; STEPHEN : SEPTEMBER l, 2006
COPPOLA; AND CITY OF NEW HAVEN
` Defendants c A
................-...-.....---.-..-..--...-......----- X
PIIAINTIFF’S MOTION PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 56(Q
On August 15, 2006, defendants Edwin Rodriguez, Stephen Coppola, and City of New
Haven moved foi summary judgment. Pursuant to Rule 56(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and without waiving his right to oppose defendants’ motion on the merits at a later
time, plaintiff Gary Session, hereby requests that the Court defer ruling on the pending motions
and grant plaintiff leave to conclude discovery that is necessary for the proper adjudication of
these motions and his claims.
The pending motions for summary judgment are premature in that plaintiff has been
precluded by the defendants Hom conducting meaningful discovery and also has not yet had the
opportunity to discover information vital to plaintiffs opposition to the motions for summary
judgment. Currenily before the Court are several un-adjudicated pleadings related to discovery,
including plaintiffs motion to compel and opposition thereto by the individually named
defendants and defendant City of New Haven’s motion to quash and plaintiff s memorandum in
opposition theretoi
» l

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 77 Filed O9/O1/2006 Page 2 of 3
Should the Court grant the instant motion, plaintiff proposes that the court allow thirty
(30) days after the close of discovery for plaintiff to file his opposition to the motions for
summary judgment. In the event that the Court denies this motion, plaintiff requests thirty days
from the date of such denial during which plaintiff will, within his limited ability, file his
substantive opposition to defendants’ motions.
In support hereof and as further grounds for the granting of this motion, plaintiff has
submitted herewith a memorandtmi of law and suppoiting affidavit by the undersigned, the
contents of which are incorporated by reference herein.
K THE 1>LA1NTn¤F, F
GARY SESSION
I BY /s/ Karen L. Mayer
i` Karen L. Mayer
y. Philip Russell, LLC
` 66 Field Point Road
__ Greenwich, CT 06830
203-661-4200
E Federal Bar No. CT 26555
2

“ Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 77 Filed O9/O1/2006 Page 3 of 3
A; CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on September 1, 2006, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of the
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.
Z, BY /s/ Karen L. Mayer l
Karen L. Mayer
P Philip Russell, LLC
66 Field Point Road
W Greenwich, CT 06830
203-66l-4200
- ~ Federal Bar No. CT 26555
A . 3