Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 34.2 kB
Pages: 4
Date: August 15, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,003 Words, 6,173 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/15591/76-1.pdf

Download Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 34.2 kB)


Preview Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 76

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PETER D. MAINS and LORI M. MAINS Plaintiffs, vs. SEA RAY BOATS, INC. Defendant. : CASE NO. 301 CV 2402 (AWT) : : : : : : : : AUGUST 14, 2006

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE JOINT TRIAL MEMORANDUM This is a Memorandum in Support of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Settlement Conference and for an Extension of Time in which to file the Joint Pretrial Memorandum. This Court previously held a Settlement Conference in the matter on May 6, 2006 which did not result in the settlement of this matter. Subsequent to that Settlement Conference the Plaintiffs reviewed certain aspects of the Defendants stated position and its settlement offer made at that time. The Plaintiffs also submitted a further settlement offer which was along the lines and spirit of the Defendants offer but which also addressed the plaintiffs concerns and monetary settlement requirements. Since the Settlement conference the Plaintiffs have also filed a Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery ("Motion to Compel") by which the Plaintiffs seek an Order of this Court directing the Defendant to provide fully, accurate and complete responses to certain discovery which the Defendant failed to full, truthfully and accurately respond in January and April, 2003. Without the Defendant's compliance with the obligation to provide full, accurate and complete responses to discovery requests in

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 76

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 2 of 4

either its initial or supplementary responses, the Plaintiffs have effectively been denied the opportunity to fully pursue their claims, evaluate settlement parameters and/or prepare for the trial of this matter. The allegations and the Plaintiffs' position with respect to same are more fully stated and set forth in the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, a copy of which, with redacted Exhibit C, is attached hereto. As of record appears, the Plaintiffs' electronically filed the Motion to Compel on June 30, 2006 within the time prescribed by the Court. However, as an exhibit to the motion contained "Confidential Material" in which the parties had previously stipulated as being filed in the public record of this matter, the Court, sua sponte, sealed the Exhibits until a procedure could be prescribed for the electronic filing of a Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal and the redacted document in question. That procedure was set out in a telephone conference held by the Court (Thompson, J) with counsel for the Defendant and the Plaintiffs on July 24, 2006. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs prepared a Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal and supporting Memorandum in accordance with such prescriptions and filed same together with a Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery with redacted Exhibit C on August 3,2 006. The Court has just granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal and has now set August 31, 2006 as the Defendant's response date to the Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery. While the parties, since the May 6, 2006 date of the first Settlement Conference,have continued some dialogue with respect to settlement and the Plaintiffs have made a further settlement offer significantly lower than the previous amount, various issues including discovery issues which recently developed need resolution

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 76

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 3 of 4

before the parties can meaningfully evaluate their respective positions and settlement offers. As the pending Motion to Compel sets forth certain discovery responses pertain to significant aspects of this case. It is submitted that until the resolution of same one way or the other, a further Settlement Conference at this time would very likely be unproductive and not materially serve in the furtherance of this case or the matters at issue. Similarly, while the Court has previously extended the filing date of the Joint Trial Memorandum to September 8, 2006, until such time as the Court rules on the Plaintiffs' pending Motion to Compel, various matters at issue remain in dispute between the parties which might be resolved at a second Status Conference following the Court's decision with respect to same. The additional time beyond the present September 8, 2006 filing date will allow time for the Court to render its decision, hopefully in September, and time for the parties to consider further settlement offers and have meaningful settlement communications prior to and at a second Settlement Conference. In the event that the matter is settled as a result of same, the extensive preparation and filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum would not be necessary. If the matter is not settled as a result of a second Settlement Conference, then at least the parties will have had an opportunity to narrow the matters at issue and reduce the extent of time in preparation of the Joint Trial Memorandum as well as the use of the Court's resources if the matter must proceed to trial. On the basis of the forgoing, it is the Plaintiffs' request that the second Settlement Conference date be continued to a date of the Court's convenience following the Court's decision on the pending Motion to Compel in order to allow time for the parties to further

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 76

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 4 of 4

explore settlement on the basis of same and to make more appropriate use of the Court's time in preparing for and conducting such Settlement Conference in a context more likely to be productive toward the resolution of same. A similar extension of time in which to file the Joint Trial Memorandum is made on the same basis and to allow a reduction in or resolution of a number of the open issues as well as the possible settlement of this matter.

THE PLAINTIFFS PETER D. MAINS and LORI M. MAINS

/s/ John L. Senning ct05807 The Essex Law Group 18 Saybrook Road, Essex, CT 06426 Phone: (860) 767-2618 Fax: (860)767-2740 Email: [email protected] Their Attorney