Free Status Report - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00940-RNC

Document 31

Filed 05/03/2004

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MARIA DEGENNARO, Plaintiff, vs. EXPANETS, INC. n/k/a NETEXIT, INC., et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-CV-940-RNC

May 3, 2004

PLAINTIFF'S STATUS REPORT Plaintiff, Maria DeGennaro, respectfully submits this Status Report which addresses the matters listed in Rule 16(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. The Formulation and Simplification of Issues. Plaintiff and Defendants, Expanets, Inc. n/k/a Netexit, Inc. and Expanets of North America, LLC n/k/a Netexit of North America, LLC (collectively, "Expanets"), previously have agreed in their Report of Parties' Planning Meeting dated July 18, 2003 as to certain undisputed facts, including that, for purposes of this action only, these Defendants should be treated as alter egos of each other, as an integrated enterprise and/or a joint or single employer and, accordingly, that these Defendants will be jointly and severally liable for the damages, if any, that Plaintiff recovers in this action. This stipulation simplifies certain of the issues that could have been raised in the case. Defendant, Avaya, LLC ("Avaya"), filed its Answer with Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on April 30, 2004 and Plaintiff will determine if agreement can be reached with Avaya to stipulate as to any facts and/or to otherwise simplify the issues to be litigated in this case. Plaintiff and Expanets have commenced and completed certain discovery and Plaintiff will work with Defendants in an effort to formulate and simplify the issues to be

Case 3:03-cv-00940-RNC

Document 31

Filed 05/03/2004

Page 2 of 5

litigated at any trial on the merits. 2. Amendments to Pleadings.

Plaintiff does not anticipate that it will be necessary to amend the pleadings in this case. 3. Admissions of Fact, Stipulations Regarding Authenticity and Advance Rulings Regarding Admissibility.

Plaintiff anticipates that, following the completion of discovery, the parties may be able to stipulate as to certain additional facts, as well as to the authenticity of many documents to be offered as exhibits at trial, and that they will be in the position to present appropriate motions in limine to obtain advance rulings from the Court regarding the admissibility of documents or testimony that any party believes should be excluded from evidence at trial. 4. Avoidance of Unnecessary Proof and Cumulative Evidence, as well as Limitations or Restrictions on Use of Expert Testimony.

Plaintiff will work with the Defendants in preparation for any trial to avoid the presentation of unnecessary proof or cumulative evidence. Plaintiff does not presently anticipate that it will be necessary to limit or restrict the use of any expert testimony at trial. 5. Summary Adjudication Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

Plaintiff believes that the schedule for dispositive motions established in the Court's Order Regarding Case Management Plan, as subsequently extended, is appropriate.

-2-

Case 3:03-cv-00940-RNC

Document 31

Filed 05/03/2004

Page 3 of 5

6.

Control and Scheduling of Discovery.

Plaintiff believes that the schedule for discovery and the other pretrial deadlines established by the Court is appropriate but will determine whether Expanets or Avaya believe that it is necessary to obtain additional time to complete discovery and will promptly advise the Court as to Defendants' position(s). 7. Identification of Witnesses and Documents, Trial Briefs, Conferences and Trial.

Plaintiff believes that the schedule for submission of a joint trial memorandum, identification of witnesses and exhibits, and submission of motions in limine established in the Court's Order Regarding Case Management Plan, as subsequently extended, continues to be appropriate in this case. Plaintiff suggests that any trial briefs be filed and served at the same time that the joint trial memorandum is filed. 8. Referral to a Magistrate Judge or Master.

Plaintiff does not believe that it is appropriate to refer any matters to a Magistrate Judge or Master at this time. Plaintiff may request that a Magistrate Judge conduct a settlement conference in the future. 9. Settlement.

Plaintiff has discussed the possibility of settlement with Defendants and, as of this time, have not been able to reach any agreement. Plaintiff does not believe that any specialized settlement or alternative dispute resolution procedures would be helpful at this time. 10. Pretrial Order.

Plaintiff believes that the form and substance of the Pretrial Order required by the Court's Order Regarding Case Management Plan continues to be appropriate in this case. -3-

Case 3:03-cv-00940-RNC

Document 31

Filed 05/03/2004

Page 4 of 5

11.

Pending Motions.

There are no motions currently pending before the Court. 12. Special Procedures.

Plaintiff does not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to adopt any special procedures at this time. 13. Separate Trials or Bifurcation.

Plaintiff does not believe that it will be necessary to conduct any separate trials. Plaintiff believes that it may be appropriate to bifurcate the issue of punitive or exemplary damages from the issues of liability and compensatory damages. 14. Order(s) Under Rules 50(a) or 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff does not presently believe that any order is necessary under Rules 50(a) or 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15. Order(s) Establishing A Limitation on The Presentation of Evidence.

Plaintiff does not presently believe that any order is necessary establishing a time limitation with respect to the presentation of evidence. 16. Other Matters.

Plaintiff does not presently believe that any additional action is required to facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of this action. The Plaintiff and her undersigned counsel stand ready to provide any additional information that the Court may find helpful in managing this case or otherwise require.

-4-

Case 3:03-cv-00940-RNC

Document 31

Filed 05/03/2004

Page 5 of 5

PLAINTIFF

Dated: May 3, 2004

By:______________________________ James E. Miller Federal Bar No. CT-21560 Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller, & Shah, LLC One Lewis Street Hartford, CT 06103 (Tel)(860) 246-0600 (Fax)(860) 246-0700 (E-mail) [email protected]

-5-