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

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 36

Filed 07/12/2004

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KELLY PHANEUF, Plaintiff, v. ROSE MARIE CIPRIANO, DORENE M. FRAIKIN, KATHLEEN BINKOWSKI, TOWN OF PLAINVILLE and PLAINVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants.

: : : : : : : : : : : : :

Civil No. 3:03CV00372 (AVC)

JULY 7, 2004

MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AT TRIAL AND, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

The plaintiff, Kelly Phaneuf, hereby moves to preclude the testimony of the defendants' expert, namely, Dr. Joseph Woolston, which expert was disclosed in the defendants' Notice of Disclosure of Expert Report dated June 11, 2004. In support of her motion, the plaintiff respectfully represents the following: 1. The above captioned matter was originally scheduled to be ready for trial by

May 3, 2004. On March 18, 2004, defense counsel filed a motion for enlargement of time

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 36

Filed 07/12/2004

Page 2 of 7

within which to disclose experts and file dispositive motions, which was granted by the Court, on March 24, 2004. Pursuant to the Court's March 24, 2004 order, the defendants were to designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from experts on or before May 1, 2004, and depositions of said experts were to be completed by June 1, 2004. The case is currently scheduled to be ready for trial by August 15, 2004. The defendants disclosed their expert on or about June 11, 2004. 2. As a result of this late disclosure, the plaintiffs will be unduly prejudiced in the

following manner:

a)

The plaintiff will be required to conduct further discovery, which discovery

may include a deposition of the expert in order to properly prepare for the cross examination of said expert, and would require an additional extension of the Court's scheduling order; and b) The plaintiff may be required to hire and disclose an expert for the purpose of

refuting the opinions of defendants' expert. 3. Defendants' disclosure of their expert at this late stage will unduly interfere

with the orderly progress of trial in that in order for plaintiff to adequately prepare, a continuance will be required so that the plaintiff may conduct further discovery and determine whether she will need to hire and disclose an expert. The plaintiff does not want to seek a continuance unless compelled to do so by the court's refusal to preclude the testimony of the defendants' expert. 2

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 36

Filed 07/12/2004

Page 3 of 7

4.

Defendants' late disclosure of their expert suggests a bad faith delay on the

part of the defendants. Besides seeking an extension of the original scheduling order, the defendants chose to wait until approximately two months before the continued trial date to disclose their expert, and similarly chose to wait until the deadlines for both disclosing an expert and deposing all witnesses had passed. The plaintiff submits that the defendants' attempt at disclosure of their expert at this late date is an attempt at placing the plaintiff in a disadvantageous position immediately prior to trial, an attempt further evidenced by the defendants' previous failure to abide by the Court's original scheduling order. 5. Defendants' expert disclosure and attached report fail to comply with the

requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. Proc. § 26 (a) (2) (B). For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff respectfully requests that the court grant her motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the defendants' expert, Dr. Woolston, which expert was untimely disclosed, and which disclosure is otherwise inadequate under the Federal Rules. Alternatively, the plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of the scheduling order, in order to conduct further discovery and/or to disclose any experts to refute said expert's opinions. A memorandum of law is attached and annexed hereto.

3

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 36

Filed 07/12/2004

Page 4 of 7

THE PLAINTIFF, KELLY PHANEUF

Sheila J. Hanley (ct 22566) Gesmonde, Pietrosimone & Sgrignari, LLC 3127 Whitney Avenue Hamden, CT 06518 Tel.: (203) 407-4200

ORDER The foregoing motion having come before me, it is hereby ORDERED: GRANTED / DENIED.

Judge/Clerk

4

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 36

Filed 07/12/2004

Page 5 of 7

CERTIFICATION The foregoing was mailed, via first class mail, postage prepaid, this 7th day of July, 2004, to the following counsel of record:

James G. Williams, Esq. Williams, Walsh & O'Connor, LLC 110 Washington Avenue, Second Floor North Haven, CT 06473

Sheila J. Hanley

5

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 36

Filed 07/12/2004

Page 6 of 7

6

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 36

Filed 07/12/2004

Page 7 of 7

7