Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I I ase 3:03-cv-00456-MRK Document 26 Filed O4/832004 Page 1 of 3
D . · O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT __; ,_, .
DISTRICT or CONNECTICUT li R I ~> ‘r»`> lll dll
RIN CARMODY, : crvrr. if Slliéilgl
PLAINTIF F : 3 :03CV00456 (MRK)
S : r
OHL’S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC, : MARCH 31, 2004 i
DEFENDANT J
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE PRETRIAL DEADLINES
Pursuant to Local Rule 7 (b) and FRCP Rule 6 (b) the Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully K
equest an extension ofthe pretrial deadlines with respect to the conclusion of discovery for a
eriod of not less than sixty (60) days. Said extension is necessary in order to complete
discovery in light ofthe Defendant’s failure to fairly and accurately respond to Plaintiffs
discovery requests dated August 25, 2003. In support of this motion, the Plaintiif represents the
following: 5
l. The current scheduling orders call for the completion of discovery, including the l
deposition ofthe Defendant’s experts, by April Ol, 2004. p
2. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendanfs material failure to respond to Plairrtiffs
Interrogatories and Production at the March 26, 2004 deposition ofthe Defendant employees
Barry Coleman and Jerri Thorton. As more particularly set forth in the Plaintiffs Motion to i
Compel dated March 31, 2004 these employees readily revealed the names of previously
unknown employees who may have witnessed Plaintiffs incident, including Joan Moaquin,
David Payne, Michael Volpe and David Smolley, none of whom were previously disclosed.
I
I

ase 3:03—cv—004 DMRK Document 26 Filed 04/ 1 2004 Page 2 of 3
i 3 if U I
N
3. Further, despite the discussion and agreement with the Court during the telephone {
conference of January 24, 2004 and March 08, 2004, the Plaintiif has still not received responses
concerning the name of factually similar cases/incidents at Kohl’s stores in Comiecticut. I
4. It was further indicated that Barry Coleman’s entire investigative file, which includes ‘
pictures taken on May 26, 2001, was not disclosed or provided despite Plaintiff s interrogatories ]
(#10, 22) and Production (#6) specifically requesting these items. _
5. The Defendant’s material failure to fairly and accurately respond to Plaintiffs
Interrogatcries and Production will require amended disclosures of withheld Mormation and l
likely result in the need for further discovery by the Plaintiff i
6. Attempts at contacting the Defendant’s counsel, who is presently on trial, were J
unsuccessful with respect to his position regarding this motion. I
WHEREF ORE, the plaintiff requests the Court extend the pretrial deadlines for 4
completion of discovery, and other deadlines/orders, for a period of not less than sixty days. l
l
THE PLAINTIFF, N
1 1 E
431 EowE AVENUE, ro Eox 2042 y
sr1E1;roN, cr 06484 E
(203) 924-9361
l
l
l
l
l
l

I 0T;;-———____q—___H_i
i ase 3:03-cv-OO4?6J\\/IRK Document 26 Filed O4/Q1/>2004 Page 3 of 3 j
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing request for extension of time
was mailed, postage prepaid, First Class Mail, on this 31"‘ day of March, 2004, to
all counsel and pro se parties of record:
Barry Beletsky, Esq.
Riccio & Beletsky LLC
3 I0 Main Street y
Suite 2B .
East Haven, CT 06512 l
` YF /f / 1_,·' g;!:·:5F" " 4 E
{fa/__<; 7 _ lz/_,,;...,_,.¢. .l.,...,»··" \
Richard H. Greene
!

i