Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 32.6 kB
Pages: 4
Date: January 24, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 746 Words, 4,679 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/15282/71.pdf

Download Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut ( 32.6 kB)


Preview Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:01-cv-01927-WWE

Document 71

Filed 01/25/2006

Page 1 of 4

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 :

January 24, 2006

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER 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 with concurrence of plaintiff's counsel, and requests an extension of time of one hundred and twenty (120) days, resetting the discovery deadline to and including June 1, 2006 and the deadline for dispositive motions to and including July 15, 2006. In support of their motion, the defendants, through counsel represent as follows: 1. The current Scheduling Order has set the discovery deadline for February 1, 2006

and the deadline for dispositive motion for March 1, 2006 (Doc. # 65, October 3, 2005). 2. The instant matter has an extensive history, including but not limited to, two stays

of the proceedings in February 2003 on a motion by the plaintiff and again in May 2004 on a joint motion based on the representation that the plaintiff was too incapacitated to participate in the proceedings. 3. There have been five status conferences held since July 16, 2003. The latest

status conference was held on December 20, 2005.

Case 3:01-cv-01927-WWE

Document 71

Filed 01/25/2006

Page 2 of 4

4.

The defendants have noticed the deposition of the plaintiff on several occasions.

The plaintiff on each and every occasion has represented that she was too ill to be deposed. At one point she reportedly offered to attend a "telephone" deposition, which is not a recognized procedure and wholly inadequate to protect defendants' rights. The plaintiff has yet to be deposed. The defendants, it is the undersigned's understanding, have made good faith efforts to accommodate the plaintiff's claimed illness which she asserts prevents her from being deposed. The defendants will be unable to prepare their defense to plaintiff's claims if she continues to refuse to submit to a deposition. The continuous delay in deposing the plaintiff severely prejudices the defendants. 5. The undersigned is filing his appearance for the defendants this date. The

undersigned represents that he is going to require additional time to familiarize himself with the extensive history and voluminous amount of material and documents associated with the case so he can appropriately represent and vigorously defend the defendants in this matter. 6. The undersigned also requires additional time in which to contact the clients,

some of whom may be retired from state service. 7. The undersigned has a Second Circuit Court of Appeals appellee brief due in

Bogle-Assegai v. CHRO, Docket No. 05-1858-cv, the beginning of March 2006 which conflicts with the current dispositive motion deadline in the instant matter. 8. The undersigned has three summary judgments due in a 21-day span in late May

2006 until mid-June 2006 in Garcia v. ECSU, 3:05CV0922(PCD), Thompson v. CSU, et al., 3:05CV0715(AWT) and Bull v. Barone, 3:03CV2034(AWT) which necessitates the request for four months in order to not conflict with those deadlines. 9. The plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the delay.

2

Case 3:01-cv-01927-WWE

Document 71

Filed 01/25/2006

Page 3 of 4

10. 11.

This is the undersigned's first request to modify the Scheduling Order. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), the undersigned caused plaintiff's counsel, John R.

Williams, Esq., to be contacted and he has authorized the undersigned to represent that he has NO OBJECTION to this motion. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request a one hundred and twenty (120) day extension of time, resetting the discovery deadline to June 1, 2006 and the deadline for filing dispositive motions to July 15, 2006.

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

3

Case 3:01-cv-01927-WWE

Document 71

Filed 01/25/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time Modifying Scheduling Order was mailed on this 24th the following: John R. Williams, Esq. Williams and Associates, LLC 51 Elm Street, Suite 409 New Haven, CT 06510 day of January, 2006, first class postage prepaid to

______________________ Joseph A. Jordano Assistant Attorney General

4