Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 203 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 1 of 4
l

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT `
GARY SESSION : CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:03CV00943 (AWT) A
EDWIN RODRIGUEZ AUGUST 5, 2008
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF 'S MOTION TO COMPEL
The Defendant, Edwin Rodriguez, through counsel, hereby oppose to the Plaintiff s Motion for
Order Compelling Production dated August 4, 2008.] In support of his opposition, the Defendant
submits the following:
1.) On December 20, 2007, the undersigned counsel for the Defendant, fonner counsel for
the Plaintiff, Roy Ward, and corporation counsel for the City of New Haven, Michael
Wolak reviewed documents contained within the City of New I-Iaven’s litigation tiles.
2.) Prior to December 20, 2007, the Defendant did not have documents generated in the
course of any internal affairs investigation against him, in his possession, custody or
control.
3.) At the time this lawsuit was commenced, Edwin Rodriguez was no longer a member of
the New Haven Police Department and did not have any files in his possession, custody
, or control.
l
4.) Accordingly, during review of the City of New Haven’s litigation file in connection with
l
5 ‘ Because the Praintiff has net e~iiled this motion and it has het yet appeared on the docket, the Defendant has attached
the Plaintiffs mcticn as Exhibit A.

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 203 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 2 of 4
l
l
this case, when documents were discovered relating to an internal affair investigation arising
out of the investigation of the case of State v. Angel Garcia, all counsel agreed that counsel
for the Defendant should take possession of this file to review. p
5.) Prior to this date, counsel for the Defendant had never seen these documents.
6.) At the suggestion of and through the cooperation of the Plaintiff s former counsel, the
undersigned took possession of the internal affairs documents, which consisted solely of
several identical copies of materials related to the State v. Angel Garcia matter, and
Stephen Coppola’s training records.
7.) There were no documents relating to internal affairs investigations of former Defendant
Stephen Coppola removed from the City of New Haven’s litigation files.
8.) Attorney Gallagher issued correspondence to Attorney Ward and Attorney Wolak
documenting the taking of such documents. See attached correspondence, Exhibit B.
9.) Upon review of the materials and consultation with the Defendant, the undersigned
learned that the dissemination of such materials would violate the terms of the
defendant’s settlement agreement with the City of New Haven.
10.) Moreover, through research, the Defendant determined that an additional good faith basis
existed to file a Motion for Protective Order regarding the files removed from corporation
counsel’s office.
ll.) The Defendant tiled his Motion for Protective Order on January 9, 2008. J
l2.) The Plaintiff thereafter tiled corresponding Motion to Compel Production of the internal
affairs documents on January l8, 2008.
2

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 203 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 3 of 4
t
13.) On June 4, 2008, the Court issued its ruling compelling production ofthe internal affairs
documents but allowed the parties to draft a proposed order governing the release of such i
documents.
14.) On June 12, 2008, the Defendant submitted a proposed order, which limited the
dissemination of the internal affairs documents.
15.) On July 1, 2008, the Court adopted the Defendant’s proposed order.
16.) Thereafter, on July 10, 2008, counsel for the Defendant made complete production of the
internal affairs tiles that were removed from the City of New Haven’s litigation files.
17.) In addition to producing the internal affairs tiles that were obtained from the City of New
· Haven’s litigation file, the Defendant produced any and all personnel information for the
Defendant contained in the Defendant’s counsel’s file.
18.) Despite making this representation to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff s counsel persists in
suggesting that the undersigned has withheld internal affairs information without having
a good faith basis to make such claims. See Attached letter from Attorney Gallagher to
Attorney Pinheiro.
19.) The Defendant does have any documentation responsive to the Court’s Order in his
possession, custody or control.
20.) Counsel for the Defendant does not have any additional documentation responsive to the
Court’s Order in their possession, custody or control.
21.) The Plaintiffs allegations that counsel for the Defendant has made limited production l
and made recklessly and without merit, in contravention of our rules of practice.
3

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 203 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 4 of 4
l
l
l
For the reasons set forth herein, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the
Plaintiff s request to compel production.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANTS,
/s/ Meghan K. Gallagher
Meghan K. Gallagher
Federal Bar No. ct26914
Susman, Duffy & Segalofh P.C.
55 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
Phone: (203) 624-9830
Fax: (203) 562-8430
E—mail: [email protected]
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on August 5, 2008 a copy of the foregoing Defendants Opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept
electronic tiling. Notice of this filing will be sent by e—mail to all parties by operation of the cou1t’s
electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic tiling as indicated on the
Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this tiling through the court’s CM/ECF System.
/s/ Meghan K. Gallagher
Meghan K. Gallagher
Federal Bar No. ct 26914
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, P.C.
55 Whitney Ave.
New Haven, CT 06510
tel.: 203-624-9830
fax: 203-562-8430
mgallagher@susmanduffy. com
I:\Client N-O\NHClTY\Scssion\Plcadings\opposition to motion to compel 8 5 08.doc
4