Free Letter - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I Case 3:03-cv-00930-CFD Document 49 Filed O1/29/2004 Page 1 of 1 I
I SABIA & HARTLEY, LLC I
I I ATTORNEYS AT LAW p
I I iso raumeumsrnear ·
Q I sum: zoz
I HARTFORD, cenneerrcur osios-zzos . ._ _ , ,_ I
I RANDALI-J. SABIA TE|__EP|·-IQQNE
JILL HAR:TLEY* c (BBQ) 54i ..2077
EDWARD c. TAIMAN, Jn. a_
······· ¤i=Acsnviu.E
EILEEN C. MOSKEY (860) 753-3944
MICHAEL- G. AL.BAl\IO** 1...
I JOHN F'- SHEA. JR- www.sAsiAi-•An·r.cc•M
I l..ORI RITTMAN ci.Am< `
I or- eoumsi-ct.:
siuazw is. Parents January 23, 2004
I * ALSO AIDMITTEZD IN MA
, I ** ALSO ADMITTED IN NY R NJ I
Q
Q
E VIA FACSIMILE (by permission) (240-2637) and REGULAR MAIL
Z The Honorable Christopher F. Droney r
¤¤ United States District Court I
, 450 Main Street j
2 * Hartford, CT 06103 I
»— .:
E p . RQ; Parker v. Hartford Parkin Authorit et nl, ‘
g _ ._ Dodlfet No.: 3:03cv 930 (CFD)
8 I jj 52
Q, * Dear Judge ,Droney:>
5 I — . I--I, ji; i
_§ I = Irepresentitfie Defendants in the above-captioned matter. I understand that your
3 I chamberstltpas suggested that counsel for both sides submit letters to your attention, in an effort to _
m I resolve a discovery dispute that arose yesterday in the deposition of individual defendant, Serafin I
'§ I Mendez Mendez (“Mendez"). I
·-r a
U :
-5 By way of background, Plaintiff, Robert Parker ("Plaintiff”’) was the Controller for
E Defendant, The Hartford Parking Authority (the "HPA"). Plaintiff’s First Amendment
Z Retaliation claim stems from the events of a May 14, 2003 Special Meeting of the HPA.
jj I Plaintiff maintains that he was suspended and ultimately terminated in retaliation for his alleged
*5} efforts to raise matters of public concem at the Meeting. Defendants deny these claims. Rather,
Q gfiendez has testified that Plaintiff was suspended and ultimately terminated because of the I
g 'gemper tantrum he threw when he was not recognized to speak at the Meeting (which included
‘” I hhis slamming of papers and doors, a raised and hostile tone of voice and his abrupt departure
-I-J i .
E ' M Efrom the Meeting).
rt A
B 1; . . . . .
H ¤ .3 Plaintiff has moved the Court for leave to amend hrs Complaint for a second time,
Tut R; uproposing to add a claim for violation of Plaintiff’s alleged rights to procedural due process.
·§ H }Defendants have no objection to Plaintiff’s request for leave to file his Second Amended
.§| $gmplaint.
0 ·¤ wi
°’ .:3 S "\ ¤
.2 s ··· ri S
er u ig Ei I
1 i -4 #.}··r§.,="-§=.»`r.:f<·,ij<.\Lv~·.'r#§ ·¢¤;,;.Ii,.\~,;· >}’,r··.,;Lr2>1.:~i-·A·;».;1is‘:(¤;· ;¢»¢:xw,19,:»q,¢»·-».4».~i-as•·\•¤=·v·<*eww!v4•*m··:•!·»v~¤~s»·v·¤·1n¤-•4¤,·s—·•¤».¤v•v=l:-r»n¢#-ri*t·;·x¤¤r·vA·—»n»1;y•¤4¤»¢vAa»4»;n;>¤»gq•m»s=r•e¤vv~4»¢~—v¤A3+m-wir py]A,;»|‘ ee · .: v j ` f .·e- - ;» -:,_.--L. -‘r.· M I
I _ - ·’ _ - - ':r'—' ~ ·-*= *. =r-":‘»=* -t ="-‘=- _ - = · , - ._ I- ;g~·tx*§,ss »·4»¤ia~»4`,mp`\s;¤e4».g.;g,q,,,-;i4,“.,.uA.,-T,a),6,,Y1A