Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-01979-WWE

Document 37

Filed 12/11/2003

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT KARL HOGFELDT v. OLD SAYBROOK P.D., ET AL : : : : : NO.: 3:01 CV 1979 (WWE)

DECEMBER 9, 2003

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The defendants, TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK, OLD SAYBROOK POLICE DEPARTMENT, SERGEANT DONALD HULL, PATROLMAN JAY RANKIN, PATROLMAN CHRIS DEMARCO and PATROLMAN DAVID PERROTTI, hereby object to the plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time dated December 4, 2003 and pray that said Motion is denied. In this instance, the plaintiff's request for additional time is unreasonable, unwarranted and dilatory. In support of their objection, the defendants offer: 1. The defendants moved for summary judgment on November 15, 2003, the long-standing dispositive motion deadline. 2. 3. Plaintiff's response was due on December 4, 2003 On the last day his response was due, plaintiff sought additional time from the undersigned. 4. At that time, the defendants agreed to an extension of time until January 5, 2004 but stated that they would object to any time thereafter. 5. No good faith reason for the extension of time has been presented for this extension of time ­ to opposing counsel or to the court 6. The plaintiff's request for 73 additional days to respond to summary judgment is unreasonable, unwarranted and seeks only to impose additional cost upon the defendants by additional discovery and by avoiding a resolution of the pending dispositive motion.

Case 3:01-cv-01979-WWE

Document 37

Filed 12/11/2003

Page 2 of 3

7.

The plaintiff had months to disclose expert witnesses and he has not.

8.

The expert witnesses will have no bearing on the pending motion for summary judgment. Indeed, neither expert was present during the incident and therefore cannot offer any first hand knowledge that might create some issue of material fact.

9.

The very expert disclosure filed by the plaintiff, while dated November 12, 2003, was received on December 4, 2003.

10.

Said disclosure fails to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) and should be stricken (the subject of a motion filed herewith)

11.

The defense of qualified immunity shields government agents "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." McEvoy v. Spencer, 124 F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 1997), quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

12.

More importantly, it is more than just a defense; the doctrine of qualified immunity is an immunity from suit. Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d at 163. (emphasis added.)

WHEREFORE, the defendants pray that this Court sustain their Objection and deny the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

2

Case 3:01-cv-01979-WWE

Document 37

Filed 12/11/2003

Page 3 of 3

THE DEFENDANTS, OLD SAYBROOK POLICE DEPARTMENT, SERGEANT DONALD HULL, PATROLMAN DAVID PERROTTI, PATROLMAN CHRIS DEMARCO, PATROLMAN JAY RANKIN AND THE TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK /s/ John J. Radshaw, III Thomas R. Gerarde, ct05640 John J. Radshaw, III, ct19882 HOWD & LUDORF 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 (860) 249-1361

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent, handling charges prepaid, via U.S. Mail to the following counsel of record this 9th day of December 2003. Bruce E. Newman, Esquire Newman, Creed & Associates 99 North Street, Route 6 P.O. Box 575 Bristol, CT 06011 A. Paul Spinella, Esquire Spinella & Associates One Lewis Street Hartford, CT 06103 /s/ John J. Radshaw, III Thomas R. Gerarde John J. Radshaw, III

3