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

Case 3:03-cv-00372-P8/5) Document 24 Filed 03/22/ Page 1 of4
i
Q UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLF§'I§] _ ‘_· - ` *
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT! `
I rin rriil 22 P l= li? R
K. Luv PHANEUF, E i1i‘?.¤Q.I;E?‘
: §Q_=.;·iii··i .,. iii}.- pi. ,
Plaintiff, : Civil No. 3:0 CV00372 (AVC) A 1
V'
l• SE MARIE CIPRIANO, DORENE M. : i I
[ ·IKlN, KATHLEEN BINKOWSKI, : T
T WN OF PLAINVILLE and PLAINVILLE : i
B ARD OF EDUCATION, : l {
E : i ,
‘ Defendants. : MARCH 18, 004 i
. T N
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT O · TIME
` The defendants herein respectfully request that the court gr ttheir motion for
eg largement of time with regard to certain aspects of the Scheduli ·i Order. Specifically
i unsel for the plaintiff previously extended the discovery deadline i rom January
3 ,2004 until February 27, 2004. The purpose of the extension wa to take the
; i i
d position of an additional fact witness, Nancy Lewis which took pla e on February 5,
2 04. The transcript of that deposition, taken by the plaintiff, has n t yet been made T
a' ailable. Upon completion ofthe factual discovery the defendantsi ould request the
fol lowing extension: i i
i
1. With respect to designation of trial experts, the defend nts request that
th deadline be extended by ninety days upto and including l\/larcil 0, 2004 in which to
di close such expert reports and April 30, 2004 by which depositio y . of any such
d fense experts may be taken. The defendants also seek an exterir ion of an additional ,
‘ l l
l i
I i
-44/ —-——-i —-l
g_g_g_g_g -l-l-l `
_g_g_g_g_g_g_ M -l-l-l M

‘ - l l
M Case 3:03-cv-00372-@3 Document 24 Filed 03/22/ A Page 2 of 4

th rty days in which to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. The ef sting order currently
c` Ils for summary judgments to be filed on or before March 1, 2004. The discovery
d adline had previously been extended by the court at the request fcounsel for the E
pl- intiff. Moreover, the deposition of the fact witness taken at that ti e has not yet
b en made available. As discovery was extended at the request 0% Iaintiff’s counsel
fo the defendant was delayed with regard to preparing its motion f summary
I
ju; gment. Moreover, the defendants have experienced delay with r gard to securing
n cessary affidavits from several fact witnesses to be filed in conju ction with the
rn tion for summary judgment. Finally counsel for the defendants rein was under the I
m sunderstanding that the summary judgment motion was due on before August 2,
2. 04 - the date originally proposed in the Report of Parties Planniri Meeting prepared
b' counsel of record.
At a recent settlement conference held before Parajudicial fficer Reed Murphy,
c unsel discovered that the deadline was in fact March 1, 2004 an at that time filed its {
Nl tion for Summary Judgment. The defendants maintain that the osition advocated
in; the summary judgment is meritorious and the interest ofjudicial onomy and
fa mess to the parties would mandate that the court entertain the smb stance of the `
d fendant’s motion. `
Defense counsel also wishes to point out that as of this datej Joint Trial
M; morandum in accordance with the pretrial order has not been file . Both counsel for
th plaintiff and counsel for the defendant missed this filing. Sincelt e joint trial
m morandum has not yet been prepared, the parties would not be rejudiced by the
r uested extensions. The defendant would respectfully request a+ order extending
S l i
l
. ___j__.._________._______l

Case 3:03-cv-00372-{EC Document 24 Filed O3/22/Q 4 Page 3 of 4
· ‘ l l
j l
t time within which to file the Joint Trial Memorandum for a suffici nt period of time to
al ow the court to consider the merits ofthe motion for summary ju% ment and any `
o positional brief.
Counsel for the defendant has sought no extensions of any rders with regard to
t s matter. Counsel for the plaintiff has sought an extension with gard to her original
f lure to claim the matter to the jury docket as well as the previousl referenced motion l
f enlargement of time to conduct discovery up to and including F ruary 27, 2004. A
cl py of the proposed motion for summary judgment was filed with? e cIerk's office on
rch 17, 2004 some nineteen days subsequent to the completionl fdiscovery. -
Counsel for the plaintiff has indicated that it objects to this nl tion. l
l WHEREFORE it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant this
M tion for Enlargement of Time and set new Scheduling Orders ewdl nding the
d adlines as referenced herein. i
l
THE DEFENDANTS,
\ • r l l
l By: Q gi l ——_//7
James G. iarns , g
: Williams, Walsh & O'Connor l
5 110 Washington Avenue I
’ North Haven, CT 06473 l j
(203) 234-6333, Juris #421162 _ N
l
l
“ l
l
l
l l
l l l

¤ i
Case 3:03-cv-00372-(4WiQ Document 24 Filed O3/22/QT 4 Page 4 of 4 I
y CERTIFICATION {
i i
- This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, via y rst class, postage ’
pi paid, this 18th clay of march, 2004 to: i i
sj eila J. Hanley
G smonde, Pietrosimone & Sgrignari, L.L.C.
3 27 Whitney Avenue
H_ mden, CT 06518-2344 i
Jam . Williams
1 Commis ner of the Superi Court
N i
i L
i
. i