Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK

Document 79

Filed 04/28/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JANICE C. AMARA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIGNA CORP. AND CIGNA PENSION PLAN, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-2361 (DJS)

APRIL 28, 2004

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER/MOTION TO DEFER DECISION Plaintiffs hereby respond to defendant's motion to amend its answer by moving that the Court defer decision on defendant's motion until the conclusion of discovery. Under this Court' referral (#76), Magistrate Judge Martinez is considering s Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents that Defendants asserted were privileged. The Plaintiff class intends to conduct limited additional discovery when those issues are decided, after which the class will move for leave to amend the Complaint to conform with all the evidence. Amendments of complaints are not unusual at the conclusion of discovery or summary judgment stage. See, e.g.,Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1488 ("need to amend may not appear until after discovery has been completed"). To the extent that Plaintiff' counsel have s identified respects in which the Complaint needs to be clarified, Defendants have already been placed on notice through the reports of Plaintiff' actuarial and communications s experts, through the matters identified in Plaintiff' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, and s through Plaintiff' answers to Defendants' s interrogatories of the likelihood of a motion to

Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK

Document 79

Filed 04/28/2004

Page 2 of 3

amend the complaint. Plaintiff respectfully submits that it will be more efficient for the Court to consider both Plaintiff' motion for leave to amend the complaint and s Defendants' motion for leave to supplement their answer at the same time. Indeed, the amendment of Plaintiff's complaint may cause Defendants to seek to amend their answer again. Defendants articulate no purpose to be served by deciding their motion for leave to supplement their answer before discovery is concluded, and the Plaintiff class will not going to contend that it was prejudiced by a deferral. Defendants did not confer before filing their motion, and Plaintiff asked Defendants to consent to Plaintiff's deferral proposal but Defendants declined to do so without offering a substantive explanation why handling both issues at the same time would prejudice Defendants. THE PLAINTIFF By/s/ Thomas G. Moukawsher Thomas G. Moukawsher Fed. Bar. No.: ct08940 Moukawsher & Walsh, LLC 21 Oak Street, Suite 209 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 278-7003 Stephen R. Bruce (Proc Hac Vice) Suite 210 805 15th St., NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 371-8013

Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK

Document 79

Filed 04/28/2004

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed on this date to the defendant at: Christopher A. Parlo Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Joseph J. Costello Jeremy P. Blumenfeld Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Dated this 28th day of April, 2004. /s/ Thomas G. Moukawsher Thomas G. Moukawsher