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

Case 3:01-cv-01913-DJS

Document 114

Filed 11/16/2006

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HOWARD JOHN GOMBERT Plaintiff, v. LARRY LYNCH and WILLIAM KAMINSKI Defendants. : : : : : : :

Civil Action No. 3:01 CV 1913 (DJS) November 16, 2006

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES CONSISTENT WITH COURT'S RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S RULE 56(F) MOTION In light of the Court's Order dated November 9, 2006 (the "November 9th Order") enlarging the discovery period and extending the deadline for Plaintiff, Howard John Gombert ("Gombert"), to file a memorandum in opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, Gombert respectfully moves the Court to modify its Scheduling Order dated October 3, 2006 (the "Order") to extend the deadline for filing sur-replies in connection with the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment from November 17, 2006 to January 29, 2007. The requested extension is consistent with the November 9th Order, which extends Gombert's deadline to file a memorandum in opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Renewed Motion") to January 19, 2006, so that he may conduct necessary discovery in order to respond to the Renewed Motion. In support of this motion, Gombert states as follows:

CTDOCS/1676472.2

Case 3:01-cv-01913-DJS

Document 114

Filed 11/16/2006

Page 2 of 5

On October 3, 2006, this Court, Squatrito, J., entered an Order setting deadlines for filing cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court ordered that the parties' motions were due by October 24, 2006, responses to the motions were due by November 7, 2006, and any sur-replies to the responses are due by November 17, 2006. In compliance with the Order, on October 24, 2006, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendants' Renewed Motion raised a defense that was not pled and was not included in Defendants' prior summary judgment motion; namely, the purported "safekeeping" or "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Accordingly, Gombert moved for, and the Court granted (by the November 9th Order), among other things, an extension of time for Gombert to conduct discovery related to the Defendants' new community caretaking defense and extended the time for Gombert to file his reply to the Defendant's Renewed Motion to January 19, 2006.1 Defendants filed their Response to Gombert's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on November 7, 2006 (the "Response"). In their Response, Defendants: (1) "incorporate by reference all of the arguments and factual assertions set forth in their [Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment]" and supporting documents (Response at 1); (2) allege that Gombert has misconstrued the "safekeeping" or "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement (Response at 2); and (3) argue that the granting of the their Renewed Motion would require this Court to deny Gombert's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (Response at 1).

On November 9, 2006, this Court, Squatrito, J., also denied the motion to quash filed jointly by the New Milford Police Department and the Defendants.

1

CTDOCS/1676472.2

2

Case 3:01-cv-01913-DJS

Document 114

Filed 11/16/2006

Page 3 of 5

Defendants' new "safekeeping" or "community caretaking" defense is such an integral part of their Response to Gombert's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment that Gombert cannot reply to the Defendants' Response to Gombert's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment for the very same reasons that Gombert cannot yet oppose Defendants' Renewed Motion. This Court has already determined that Gombert is without adequate discovery to fairly respond to the Renewed Motion and the same lack of discovery on the new legal theories raised by Defendants prevents Gombert from fairly supporting his own summary judgment motion. Undersigned Counsel has contacted counsel for the Defendants, James Tallberg, who consents to this motion. This is Gombert's first request to modify the outstanding summary judgment scheduling deadlines. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Gombert respectfully requests an extension of the deadline for filing sur-reply briefs to (and including) January 29, 2007.

CTDOCS/1676472.2

3

Case 3:01-cv-01913-DJS

Document 114

Filed 11/16/2006

Page 4 of 5

THE PLAINTIFF, HOWARD JOHN GOMBERT By:/s/ Sara R. Simeonidis__________ Ben M. Krowicki [ct06153] Kate K. Simon [ct23489] Sara R. Simeonidis [ct25566] BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 240-2700 Facsimile: (860) 240-2800 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] His attorneys

CTDOCS/1676472.2

4

Case 3:01-cv-01913-DJS

Document 114

Filed 11/16/2006

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was sent via the Court's electronic notification system or by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the 16th day of November, 2006, upon the following counsel of record: James N. Tallberg, Esq. Karsten & Dorman, LLC 29 South Main Street West Hartford, CT 06107

/s/ Sara R. Simeonidis__________ Sara R. Simeonidis

CTDOCS/1676472.2

5