Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-01050-AVC Document 161 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
POR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARY CARR, et al, )
Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION NO,
. ) 3:00 CV 1050 (AVC)
V-I )
) Tune 19, 2007
PATRICIA WILSON-COKE-R, in her )
official capacity as Commissioner ofthe State ) CLASS AC IION
of` Comrecticut Department of Social Services, )
Defendant.. )

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND REFERRAL TO JUDGE
MAGISTRATE
I. Introduction
On June 13, 2007, in response to a call from the chambers ofthe Court, plaintiffs
submitted an up—date to the court regarding the settlement negotiations in the instant case, On
June I4, 2007, the court issued an order setting a deadline of July 16°h, 2007 for the parties to I
submit their Ioint Pre-Trial Memorandum, The parties recognize and apologize for the fact that
settlement negotiations in this case have exceeded one yearn In addition to the need fer a
settlement to be approved by the Connecticut General Legislature, the Department of Social
Services has a new Commissioner, which led to a significant alteration in the settlement
negotiations. A `
Consequently, pursuant to Rule 6 (b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule
7(b) ofthe Local Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties respectfully request a limited extension of
time, with specific conditions, to either resolve settlement or to appropriately prepare for I.I'IEi.l.r1
l .. As a matter of showing good faith regarding settlement, the parties note that
counsel fer plaintiffs and defendants have just achieved settlement in a separate class action
- 1

Case 3:00-cv-01050-AVC Document 161 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 4
This is the first motion for extension of time filed by the parties with respect to the Joint Trial
Memorandum..
The parties also respectfully request, pursuant to Rulel 6(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Rule l6(c) ofthe Local Rules of Civil Procedure, a referral to a judge
magistrate for settlement purposes.
H. Background U ‘
The instant class action regarding access to Medicaid dental services was commenced on
Time 8, 2000. On April 2, 2001, the court certified the class and sub—class to encompass 300,000 ,
child and adult Medicaid recipients in Connecticut. ln January, 2006, this court denied
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to DSS’ compliance with the federal
Early Periodic`Screening Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) Program. Shortly thereafter, the l
Connecticut state legislature passed Public Act 06-188, authorizing DSS to use specific funds
identified in the 2007 state Department of Social Services Medicaid appropriation for the
settlement ofthe Carr v. Wilson Coker litigation. (State of Connecticut Public Act No 06-188
Sec. 24). Since that time, the parties have engaged in formal negotiations with written settlement
proposals. A similar Public Act and appropriation was pending in front ofthe 2007 legislature,
with the 2007 budget currently awaiting legislative approval. l
On May 14, 2007, the parties met with the new DSS Commissioner and advanced
settlement negotiations significantly. Both parties agree that the assistance ofajudge magistrate
involving the Department of Social Services (Qymond v. Rowland 3 :03CV0l 18 (MRK)) and
p1aintiffs’ counsel also just achieved settlement of a class action with the Department of Children
and Families (W.R. v. Dunbar, 3:02cv 429 (RNC)). Both settlement negotiations exceeded one
year but both resulted in significant settlement agreements approved by the 2007 legislature and ·
are awaiting fairness hearings in federal court.
P 2

Case 3:00-cv-01050-AVC Document 161 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 4
will facilitate the negotiation ofa settlement. Both parties are also cognizant ofthe time that has
lapsed during settlement negotiations and consequently request the following:
1) A short settlement period, until September 30, 200'7, under the aegis ofa magistrate
judge, with formal monthly reports to the court. The parties themselves will be meeting shortly,
as soon as a final budget is achieved. E
2) Ihe parties will concurrently up-date discovery to be in a position to go to trial without
further delay, should settlement not occur.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, both parties respectfully request that the Court grant the extension of time in
this matter and request a referral to a magistrate judge to facilitate the settlement negotiations.
Respectfully Submitted;
BY @-Qwvxlgj
Anne Louise Blanchard
Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.
Federal Bar No. ct 08718
872 Main Street
Willimantic, Connecticut 06226
Telephone: (860) 456-1761
Fax: 860 456-7420
e-mail: ablanclrard@/connlegalservices org
For Plc:int%‘
Hugh Barber
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
P..O.. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141
Tel: 860-808-5210
Fax: 860—808—5385
e-mail: [email protected] ·
Fed Bar. No. ct087l8
3

Case 3:00-cv-01050-AVC Document 161 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 19, 2007, a copy ofthe foregoing Joint Motion For
Continuance and Referral to Judge Magistrate was filed electronically and served by mail on
anyone unable to accept electronic filing; all parties listed below, Notice ofthis filing will be
sent by e—mail to all parties and persons by operation ofthe court’s electronic filing system or by
mail to anyone unable to accept electronic tiling as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing.,
Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CNM/ECP System.,
Anne Louise §ianchard
4