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


File Size: 211.5 kB
Pages: 4
Date: January 30, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 771 Words, 4,887 Characters
Page Size: 603.12 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/19661/63.pdf

Download Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut ( 211.5 kB)


Preview Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:02-cv-01718-RNC Document 63 Filed O2/O2/2004 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Joseph A. Schiavone Corporation : Civil Action
Michael Schiavone, : No. 302 CV-1718 (RNC)
Plaintiffs
v.
Philip Kasden
Northeast Utilities Service Company, :
Connecticut Light and Power Company :
Defendants : January 30, 2004
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time To File a Motion to Compel Discovery
Based on Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and Production Requests
Addressed To Connecticut Light & Power Company
Plaintiffs seek an extension of 14 days in which to file a motion to compel discovery based
on Plaint@€s ’F irst Set of [nterrogatories and Production Requests Addressed T 0 Connecticut Light
& Power Company, dated December 2, 2003. Connecticut Light and Power Company’s ("CL&P")
original Objections and Partial Responses to Plaintwfs ’F irst Set of [nterrogatories and Production
Requests Addressed To Connecticut Light & Power Company, dated December 30, 2003, objected
to each ofthe 7 interrogatories and 4 ofthe 5 production requests while providing "pa1ti a1" responses
and some documents. Although CL&P did not obj ect to the fifth document request, plaintiffs found
its response inadequate.
By letter dated January 8, 2004 (copy attached), counsel for plaintiffs pointed out several
problems with CL&P’s response. As the letter indicates: (1) thc responses are not signed by CL&P,

Case 3:02-cv-01718-RNC Document 63 Filed O2/O2/2004 Page 2 of 4
(2) the "partial" responses are inappropriate where the entire interrogatory has been objected to, (3)
each of CL&P’s objections is waived as it is generic boilerplate rather than the specific detailed
objection required under the Rules, and (4) each of the objections is merit less. CL&P has since
provided the required signature.
During a conference call on January 23, 2004, counsel for CL&P agreed to withdraw
objections to lnterrogatory #2, Interrogatory #7, and Request for Production #3. It was also agreed
that CL&P would provide revised responses which replace "please see" type references to prior
responses of another defendant with more appropriate language specifically adopting such material
as CL&P’s own response. Revised responses were to be provided by 12:00 pm January 30, 2004.
These agreements are summarized in the attached correspondence dated January 23, 2004. No other
agreements were reached but counsel for CL&P did indicate he would consider revising his
objections to provide the required specificity while maintaining his position that the objections as
written complied with the rules of discovery.
Pursuant to the Court’s Order Regarding Case Management Plan, dated February 14, 2003,
a motion to compel discovery must be filed within 30 days of the deadline for response to the
relevant discovery requests. For the above referenced requests, plaintiffs’ motion to compel would
be due today, January 30, 2004. Plaintiffs were prepared to file a motion to compel today, based on
CL&P’s original responses as modified by the agreements reached in conference with CL&P’s
counsel. Revised responses were received at approximately 2:00 pm today, January 30, 2004. Upon
initial review of the revised responses it is apparent that additional detail has in fact been added to
at least some of the remaining objections. The plaintiffs need additional time to review the new
2

Case 3:02-cv-01718-RNC Document 63 Filed O2/O2/2004 Page 3 of 4
infomation provided in the remaining objections.
Therefore, plaintiffs request an extension oftime of 14 days, up to and including February13,
2004, in which to file a motion to compel discovery based on CL&P’s revised responses and
objections.
The undersigned discussed this Motion with counsel for CL&P who expressed no objection
to the filing of this Motion
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph A. Schiavone Corporation, and
Michael Schiavone
Plaintiffs
Nicholas J. Harding
Federal Bar No. ct06387
Kosloff & Harding
Their Attorneys
28 North Main Street
West Hartford, CT 06107
Tel: (860)521-7004
l Fax: (860) 521-3352
F \WPDOCS\Schizwonc\PCB 2057.1 l\Fed Pleadings\Discove¤y\MotiontoCompel(`L&PExtOtTime.wpd
3

Case 3:02-cv-01718-RNC Document 63 Filed O2/O2/2004 Page 4 of 4
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy ofthe above was mailed or delivered in hand on January 30, 2004
to all counsel and pro se parties of record as follows:
Connecticut Light and Power Company Charles J. Nicol, Esq.
Northeast Utilities Service Company Angela L. Ruggiero, Esq.
Duncan Ross MacKay, Esq.
Northeast Utilities Service Company
P.O. Box 270
Hartford, CT 06141-0270
Tel: 665-3431 /665-3495
Fax: 665-5504
. > ; { i
Nicholas J. Harding
Filing Location:
Office of the Clerk
U.S. District Court
450 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103