Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 99.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 755 Words, 4,439 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22873/62.pdf

Download Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 99.3 kB)


Preview Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 62 Filed 07/06/2006 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
I HARTFORD
GARY SESSION * CIVIL ACTION NO.
PLAINTIFF * 3:03—CV—00943 (AWT)
VS. *
CITY OF NEW HAVEN; STEPHEN * JULY 6,2006
COPPOLA; AND EDWIN *
RODRIGUEZ *
DEFENDANTS *
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OF ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO
COMPLETE PLAlNTIFF’S DISCOVERY DATED JULY 5, 2006
Plaintiff s Motion of Enlargement of Time should be denied for the following reasons:
1. On May 10, 2006, the Court (Martinez, J.) held a telephonic conference to address Plaintiffs
prior Motion to Extend Time for Plaintiff to Complete Discovery (Doc. #42).
2. The Court, at that time, noted that this case is from 2003 and questioned why Plaintiffs
counsel had not filed a motion to compel sooner if she took issue with discovery
compliance. (Tr. pp. 4-5).
3. Despite objection, the Court extended the discovery deadline from March 30, 2006, per the
Rule 26f report, to July 14, 2006.
4. Rather than noticing the 18 depositions which Plaintiff s counsel represented she has not had
suswmw, DUFFY a SEGALOFF, Pc. - Arroamevs AT LAW
P.o.Bo>< 1684 · New n—rAvEN,coNNEcTrcuT 06507 - (2020624-9660 · Jums NUMBER 62505

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 62 Filed 07/06/2006 Page 2 of 3 _
the opportunity to take, she used her time to file two motions to compel against the
individual defendants, after representing to the Court on May 10, 2006, that she did not
intend to file a motion against them, and after acknowledging that she was satisfied that any
further production would be in the possession of the City and not the individual defendants.
(Tr. p.l7).
5. The Court was clear that “a short period of time in order to wrap everything up, in view of
the age of the case" would be ordered. (Tr. p. 19).
6. On May 15, 2006, Plaintiff s counsel wrote a letter to the Court seeking a month’s extension
of the order which the Court entered granting the extension after the telephonic conference
on May 10th. (Exhibit A to Plaintiffs motion). No further order followed.
7. In response to the Court’s order and concern over the age of the case, in addition to the
individual defendants’ position that they are immune from this lawsuit, the undersigned
would not consent to a further continuance as relayed in Plaintiff s Counsel’s letter. (Exhibit
A to Plaintiffs motion).
8. The undersigned has not received any of the subpoenas Plaintiff s counsel represented that
she had issued in her motion and believes that they were likely done in connection with this
last minute motion.
9. The individual defendants, by their counsel, believe that any further extension is occasioned
only by Plaintiff s failure to properly prosecute his case, which should not be permitted by
the Court.
SUSMAN, DUFFY & SEGALOFF, F.c. - ATroRNFYs AT LAW
F.o.Bo>< 1684 — New »—iAvEN,coNNFcucUT 06507 2(203)624-9830 · JURns NUMBER 62505

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 62 Filed 07/06/2006 Page 3 of 3 -
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff s Motion of Enlargement of Time should be denied in its entirety
for all of the foregoing reasons.
THE DEFENDANTS,
STEPHEN COPPOLA AND EDWIN RODRIGUEZ
BY: /s/ STEPHANIE S. BAIER
Stephanie S. Baier
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, P.C.
P. O. Box 1684
New Haven, CT 06507-1684
Phone: (203) 624-9830
Fax: (203) 562-8430
Federal Bar no: ct25370
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on July 6, 2006, a copy of the foregoing Objection to Plaintiffs
Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to Complete Plaintiffs Discovery was filed
electronically and swen/ed by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of
this filing will be sent by e—mail to all parties by operation ofthe court’s electronic filing
system or by mailto anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of
Electronic Filing. Parties may access this tiling through the court’s CM/ECF system.
By: /s/ Stephanie S. Baier
Stephanie S. Baier (ct25370)
Susman Duffy & Segaloff, P.C.
55 Whitney Avenue
P.O. Box 1684
New Haven, CT 06507
Telephone: (203) 624-9830
Facsimile;(203) 562-8430
Email: [email protected]
V:\Client N-O\NHClTY\Session\PIeadings\Objection to Enlargement of Time 070606.doc
susivi/w, ourrv 6 srzc/lrorr, nc. · Arrorawevs AT L/tw
P.O.BOX 1684 ~ New HAvi;N,coNNEcrrcur 06507 3(203)624-9830 - Jums NUMBER 62606