Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02374-CFD

Document 135

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT EDWARD BROWN, ET AL v. TOWN OF STONINGTON, ET AL : : : : : NO.: 3:01CV2374 (CFD)

SEPTEMBER 5, 2008

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION In accordance with Local Rule 7(d), the defendants, hereby reply to the plaintiff's opposition to their Motion for Reconsideration. The plaintiff first argues that this Court had before it the relevant testimony necessary to render its ruling. However, as pointed out in the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, the plaintiff's own clarification of precisely what purported retaliatory conduct occurred existed on a portion of his deposition testimony not before the Court, namely page 72. While the plaintiff clearly prefers that the Court disregard this additional testimony as it expressly refutes his claim of harassment and intimidation, this new evidence is directly relevant to the Court's determination of this issue. As indicated in the defendants' Motion, the Court did not have the benefit of this additional testimony regarding the alleged harassment and intimidation in light of the fact that the Court's ruling was issued prior to the defendants' ability to reply to the plaintiff's objection to the summary judgment motion. Reconsideration is, therefore, appropriate and warranted.

Case 3:01-cv-02374-CFD

Document 135

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 2 of 4

In the same regard, the plaintiff's contention that the defendant merely seeks to relitigate this issue is without merit. The defendants were not provided with the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's objection to their summary judgment motion on this issue. The plaintiff's claimed "true" bases for his retaliation claim in support of his opposition to the defendants' summary judgment motion necessitated a response clarifying the incomplete testimony before the Court which directly impacted the plaintiff's ability to establish retaliation, as well as the defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity. Thus, the defendants can hardly be said to simply be seeking an opportunity to relitigate the plaintiff's claimed bases for his retaliation claim. Fore the foregoing reasons, and those set forth in the Motion for Reconsideration, the defendants respectfully request that judgment enter in their favor as to the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim.

2

Case 3:01-cv-02374-CFD

Document 135

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 3 of 4

DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF STONINGTON, DAVID ERSKINE, JERRY DESMOND, RAYMOND CURIOSO, JOHN CARR AND MICHAEL PECKHAM

By s/s Beatrice S. Jordan Beatrice S. Jordan ct22001 Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114-1121 (860) 249-1361 (860) 249-7665 (Fax) Juris No.: 28228 E-Mail: [email protected]

3

Case 3:01-cv-02374-CFD

Document 135

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that on September 5, 2008, a copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.

John F. Geida, Esquire Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis, LLC 649 Amity Road P.O. Box 280 Bethany, CT 06524

s/s Beatrice S. Jordan Beatrice S. Jordan

4