Free Motion for Conference - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 204

Filed 01/08/2004

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ARC/CONNECTICUT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS vs. PETER H. O'MEARA, ET AL. DEFENDANTS. : : : : : : 3:01CV1871 (JBA)

JANUARY 7, 2004

MOTION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE The plaintiffs and defendants move for a Scheduling Conference to establish a schedule for the completion of all pretrial activities and to resolve the disputes over the Proposed Scheduling Order. A Proposed Scheduling Order and Notice to Guardians/Family are attached for the Court's consideration. In support of this motion the plaintiffs represent the following: 1. The parties join in this request for a Scheduling Conference to establish a Scheduling Order governing the remainder of the pretrial discovery, and to resolve the outstanding discovery disputes. 2. Many of the discovery deadlines established by the Scheduling Order entered on July 29, 2003 have expired. The plaintiffs did not disclose the opinions of their experts by August 2, 2003 as required by the Discovery Order because the names of DMR clients on the DMR Residential Waiting and Planning Lists had not been disclosed pending the final resolution of

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 204

Filed 01/08/2004

Page 2 of 5

defendants' appeal to the Ruling in Reconsideration. Plaintiffs' experts have therefore been unable to select a sample for study and have been precluded from obtaining the records of most of the DMR clients on the DMR Residential Waiting or DMR Planning Lists. 3. Moreover, on July 29, 2003 the Court precluded the filing of any further discovery motions until the Magistrate Judge rules on all pending motions. As the Magistrate Judge has not finally determined whether the plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the production of correspondence will be granted or denied, insofar as the request for the production of the correspondence between Laurie Deane, Esq. and Mary Moriarty is concerned, that Order is still in effect. See Ruling on Motion to Compel dtd. November 13, 2003. 4. The plaintiffs and defendants are in agreement as to many aspects of the enclosed Proposed Scheduling Order (Exhibit A) and Proposed Notice to Guardians/Family (Exhibit B). The parties are in agreement as to the dates set forth in the Proposed Scheduling Order but are in disagreement as to nine matters relating to how discovery by plaintiffs' experts may be conducted and how notice to the guardians and family of persons on the DMR Residential Waiting and Planning Lists should be implemented. The parties' disagreements are discussed in Attorney Shaw's letter to Attorney York dated December 29, 2003 (Exhibit C) and Attorney York' letter to Attorney Shaw dated December 31, 2003 (Exhibit D). 5. The parties respectfully request that the Court convene a Scheduling Conference,

2

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 204

Filed 01/08/2004

Page 3 of 5

resolve the conflicts between the parties relating to the proposed Scheduling Order and Notice to Guardians/Family and enter a revised Scheduling Order.

PLAINTIFFS, By_ /s/ David C. Shaw_______ David C. Shaw, Esq. 34 Jerome Ave., Suite 210 Bloomfield, CT 06002 Fed. Bar No. ct05239 Tel. (860) 242-1238 Fax. (860) 242-1507

3

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 204

Filed 01/08/2004

Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed first class, postage prepaid to counsel of record on January 7, 2004: Hugh Barber, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of Connecticut P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 Thomas M. Fiorentino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of Connecticut P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 Thomas B. York, Esq. Dilworth, Paxson LLP 112 Market St., 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Mark R. Carta, Esq. Rucci, Burnham, Carta & Edelberg, LLP 30 Old Kings Hwy. South Darien, CT 06820

_/s/ David C. Shaw_________ David C. Shaw, Esq.

4

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 204

Filed 01/08/2004

Page 5 of 5

5