Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-01927-WWE

Document 82

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT LISA CHARETTE Plaintiff v. : : : : : CIVIL NO. 3:01CV1927(WWE)

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL. Defendants :

June 9, 2006

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISMISSAL COMES NOW the defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Social Services, Rudolph Jones, Ronald Georgetti, John Galiette, John Halliday and Brian Merbaum, through counsel, and responds to the plaintiff's motion for relief from dismissal (Doc. # 81, dated June 5, 2006) as follows: 1. It is the defendants' understanding as of this filing that the plaintiff, Lisa Charette,

cannot give a deposition and the plaintiff is not seeking to reopen the case at this time but simply a clarification behind the dismissal. 2. If the plaintiff's motion simply seek a clarification of the court's ruling,

defendants join in the motion. The defendants respectfully request that the Court articulate its rationale for the dismissal without prejudice. The defendants submit that the Court indicated at the February 21, 2006 teleconference that it was inclined to administratively dismiss the matter without prejudice until such time as the plaintiff was able to be deposed and participate in the instant matter. 3. This case is five years old and the parties face a potential indeterminate time

period before the plaintiff indicates that she is capable of being deposed. As the Court has noted,

Case 3:01-cv-01927-WWE

Document 82

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 2 of 3

a party is obligated to attend a properly noticed deposition. See Mercado v. Division of New York State Police, 989 F. Supp. 521, 523-24 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). The plaintiff has never been deposed in this instant action, nor in a companion matter in state court. 4. In contrast, if the plaintiff is seeking to reopen the case at this time, the

defendants request an affidavit from the plaintiff or her treating physician indicating that she is capable of being deposed. Plaintiff has been noticed in for a deposition several times and she has not attended. WHEREFORE, if the plaintiff's motion is simply for clarification of the February 23, 2006 (Doc. # 78) order of dismissal without prejudice, the defendants join in the motion. However, if the plaintiff is moving to re-open the matter at this time, the defendants request an affidavit from the plaintiff indicating that she is willing and able to be deposed and an Order from the Court for a date certain for said deposition.

2

Case 3:01-cv-01927-WWE

Document 82

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 3 of 3

DEFENDANTS RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: ________________________ Joseph A. Jordano Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel: (860) 808-5340 Fax: (860) 808-5383 Email: [email protected] Federal Bar # ct21487

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on June 9, 2006 a copy of the foregoing Response to Motion for Relief from Dismissal was filed electronically. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. /s/_Joseph A. Jordano_____________ Joseph A. Jordano (# ct21487) Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel.: (860) 808-5340 Fax: (860) 808-5383 E-mail: [email protected]

3