Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

\ ..-... I. . .... . ....... ;........`4Y;; -t-.,tH..;._ ...»·......_....Y ,,____
l - C se 3:00-cv-00681-RNC Document 122 Filed O4/23/2004 Page 1 of 2
j ( F ,.2
i
\ ij L [_ _, :._.»n i,L·'
i nai liilll 2 3 lil Bb
i UNTTSD STATES ”TST“T€iT;;S0lll‘iTiz;·i mia .r
T ; E" {T ·l··
i nrsrnrcr or coivnacrrctlr ‘ ’ ‘
i NORMA WATTS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF : CIVIL ACTION NO. i
1 THE ESTATE OF AQUAN SALMON : 3:00CV0681 (RNC)
vs. E
CITY OF PLARTFORD; POLICE :
DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF 1
HARTFORD; JOSEPH F. CROUGHWELL, :
Individually and in his Official Capacity as :
Chief of Police ofthe City of Hartford; :
OFFICER ROBERT C. ALLAN, :
Individually and in his Official Capacity :
As a Hartford Police Officer : APRIL 23, 2004
PLAIN TIFF’S RESPONSETO MOTION FOR EN LARGEMEN T OF TIME
The Plaintiff submits her response to defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of
‘~ Time dated April 21, 2004 in order to place on record her position with respect thereto.
S When contacted by counsel for the defendants regarding their request for a I4-
day extension of time from May 5, 2004, to and including May 19, 2004, the
undersigned counsel indicated that he would not obj ect to a one week extension of time
so long as counsel for defendants would agree that there would be no request for a
change of the current schedule., including the date for preparation of the Trial
Memorandum and jury selection. It was our position that only an additional week
MONIZ, COOPER 8e MCCANN, LLP • Arronwavs xr i.Aw i
100 ALLYN STREET • HARTFORD, CT 06103 • (860) 278-0200 • FAX (860) 278-2212 • Jums N0. 418370 i
e-e-E E -·.;.·,;.·.e.- e‘.‘ -e.E -;.; > · = S A- - » S » - .e A .- - . A .-7 T
e.—_ E e.-_ - A.-_ - ,;._ g L.; .;.._..;.._..q___..q___;;q___;; __ gg __ gg __ qq __ gg __ qq _
e·.‘.—e. :4 .-;.; E·.·.-e.; .-_-..e. .-_-_..; Q,. .__. gi; I __ E __ pp __;
A.-_ g Q 2.._ - 2.._ g .;._ . .q___; g ;q___;;q___;;q_ _ ng qq__ qq __ gg H qq H gg U qq an H
.-e.s E·.·.-;. 2; .-e.e -..e. E-, _.e;e -_..; Q _..;, __ C; __ gg __ gg _-

. ’ se 3:OO—cv-0068}-RNC Document 122 Filed O4/2352004 Page 2 of 2
\ 2 \.
l
would be needed in view ofthe issues raised in our Motion for Reconsideration since l
we were required to tile it within 10 days of the Court’s Ruling, and defendants
currently have 13 days (not counting weekends) to respond, and that any extension of
time beyond one week would potentially affect the scheduling of this matter.
We reiterate our position that we would object to any extension or any
enlargement of time that would affect the present scheduling up to and including jury
selection.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully objects to the extension or enlargement
of time sought but does not object to a shorter extension so long as it does not affect the p
present schedule. ·
PLAINTIFF QU “
B&- ·’ _ r i , [M »
»- · osep . Mon1z(ct043] A E
Moniz, Cooper & McCann, LLP
100 Allyn Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel. (860) 278-0200
Her Attorneys
and I
Nicholas P. Cardwell, Esq.
Cardwell, Cardwell & Smoragiewicz
108 Oak Street {
Hartford, CT 06106 \
Her Attorneys I
l
MONIZ, C00PER1 Be McCANN, LLP • ATTORNEYS AT 1.Aw i
100 ALLYN STREET • HARTFORD, CT OGIOB • (860) 275-0200 • FAX (860) 278-2212 • .luRrs No. 418370 \