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

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 202 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 1 of 3

l
l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
l
GARY SESSION : CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:03CV00943 (AVV1`)
EDWIN RODRIGUEZ AUGUST 5, 2008
i OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The"Defendant, Edwin Rodriguez, through counsel, hereby objects to the Plaintiff s Motion for
Reconsideration dated July 28, 2008. In support of his objection, the Defendant submits the
following:
l.) On July ll, 2008, the Court held a telephonic status conference.
2.) During the conference call, counsel for the Plaintiff represented to the Court that the
defendants had repeatedly withheld or failed to produce documentation.
3.) During the conference call, counsel for the Defendant requested that the PlaintiH
acknowledge the distinction between counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the City,
which is no longer a party to the litigation.
4.) The undersigned’s comments were directed at explaining to Plaintiff s counsel and to the
Court that the Defendant did not have possession, custody or control of the internal
affairs files which were the subject of dispute until December, 2007.
5.) The undersigned’s comments were not directed towards the Plaintiff s attempts
throughout the litigation to obtain discovery materials.
6.) Indeed, the undersigned°s Motion for Protective Order set forth a litany of dates
regarding the parties’ requests for information.
5
I
l
l

l
Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 202 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 2 of 3
l
7.) Accordingly, the undersigned did not make the alleged misrepresentations which the
Plaintiff asserts as the basis for his request for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling.
8.) Notwithstanding, the C01lI'[’S ruling on the denial of the Plaintiff s Motion for 1
Enlargement of Time was not based upon any statements made by the undersigned during ,
l the status conference, referenced above.
9.) The Court’s ruling was based on the reasons set forth in the Defendant’s opposition to the
Plaintiff s Motion for Enlargement of Time and the Defendanfs Supplemental
Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiff s Motion for Extension of Time, specifically
that to allow the Plaintiff time for additional discovery would be unduly burdensome to
the Defendant’s ability to prepare for trial and that the Plaintiff had been granted too
many requests for extension of time.
10.) The Defendant continues to obj ect to any additional request for extension of time on that
basis.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANTS,
/s/ Meghan K. Gallagher
Meghan K. Gallagher
Federal Bar No. ct26914
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff P.C.
55 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
Phone: (203) 624-9830
Fax: (203) 562-8430
E-—mail: mgallagher@,[email protected]

2
l

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 202 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on August 5, 2008 a copy of the foregoing Defendants Objection to
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration 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 court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as p
indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this Bling through the court’s 0
CM/ECP System.
/s/ Meghan K. Gallagher
Meghan K. Gallagher
Federal Bar No. ct 26914
Susrnan, Duffy & Segalofi P.C.
55 Whitney Ave.
New Haven, CT 06510
tel.: 203-624-9830
fax: 203-562-8430
n1gallagher@[email protected]
I:\C1ient N—O\NHCITY\Session\Pleadings\opposition to motion for reconsideration 8 5 08.doc
3