Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. Case 3:02-cv-02192-WWE Document 41 Filed 10/14/2004 Page 1 of 3
, ‘ RE IVED I
1 . 4 , ~,;,,;·.,I, I UNITED STATES DISTRICT co111§11 iii?
I " I ` , DISTRICT OF CONNECTICU _
..... - ..._.._..,...__.......______,____._____.“________________ X ZIIUII uci lu R I2= 31
1 DAVID BRUNO ; Cl}/IL ACTION NQ ,
= BZGAQV?/1:§??iVifWEi
. Plaintiff, ; I ` " `
V. I
I I
GREEENWICH BOARD OF EDUCATION ; 1
I Defendant. . 1
——————---—------—-——-—————---—--------———---——--—----—--—— ·- --—- X October 7, 2004 I
REPLY TO PLAINTIFPS 0B.1EcTION TO DEr=ENDANT’s AMENDMENT TO 1
LOCAL RULE 56(AM2) STATEMENT-,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
_ The plaintiff has objected to the defendants technical amendment to
paragraph 2 of defendants Rule 56(a)(2) Statement, claiming the amendment 1
was not technical in nature and that neither agreement nor leave from the court · ,
was sought for the amendment. A review of the original _response and the 1
corrected response to paragraph 2 of plaintiffs Local 56(a)(1) Statement shows 1
that the correction was, in fact, merely technical. The plaintiff’s allegations in 1
I
paragraph 2 of his Statement of Undisputed Facts were the following: 1
. 2. The plaintiff had been identified by the Defendant as a student with
Asperger’s Syndrome and ADHD and had been identified by the ,
Defendant as a student in need of special education and related services `
in 1993. Decision FOF Nos. 1.2 AR-1, p.2.
l _ The defendant responded as follows in its Local Rule (56)(a)(2)
Statement: I
P Admitted in part, denied in part. Aspergers Syndrome is not an IDEA
identification and the plaintiff was not so identified for IDEA purposes.
Testimony by Jennifer Benoit, September 5, 20902 pp. 199 - 293. ADHD `
is not an IDEA identification. Defendant admits that in 1993 he was



` Case 3:02-cv-02192-WWE Document 41 Filed 10/14/2004 Page 2 of 3 -
identified as a student in need of special education and related services.
The balance of the allegations of ‘|i2 is [admitted ] (sic).
i Thus the defendants original response did deny the allegations of
i
( paragraph 2, that the plaintiff had been identified by the Defendant as a student
with Asperger's Syndrome and ADHD. Defendant admitted only that the student
was in need of special education and related services. Thus the balance of the ,
allegations had been denied, in fact, but the last sentence erroneously stated that- J
` the balance of the allegations were admitted. Defendants counsel noticed the n i
error in reviewing defendant's Local 56(a)(2) Statement in connection with X
preparing responses to the additional evidence allowed by the court. Therefore
l
the l;echnical correction in the Amendment: dated July 16, 2004 was made to l
( l
reflect the actual pleadings to the allegations of paragraph 2.
Defendant respectfully requests that the court allow defendant leave to
make this corrective amendment.
THEE DEFENDANT,
GRlEENW| D OF ED?/ATION
By: l L
/ Valerie E. I\/la .
_ Federal Bar No. CT 14080 l
Law Department
_ Town Hall
101 Field Point Road
Greenwich, CT 06836-2540
Tel: (203) 622-7877
Fax: (203) 622-3816
. 2 8 I g R
i

} ' Case 3:02-cv-02192-WWE Document 41 Filed 10/14/2004 Page 3 of 3 l
, l CERTIFICATION ‘ `
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by first-class
“ United States mail on October 7, 2004 to:
Lawrence W. Berliner, Esq. I
KIebanoff& Phelan, P.C.
Corporate Center West
433 South Main Street, Suite 102
, West Hartford, CT 06110 / y j
7 Valerie E. Maze? `
I
______________________________ _._._______..--. I