Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I
‘ * Case 3:00-cv-00787-AWT Document 30 Filed 10/31/2003 Page 1) gf-2g'] 0 “‘I' I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT i
:.1:: _
···················~······································· ><_ f: I
' IIT ifi TTT MTI
DERRICK TAYLOR I fj: _ """" I
: 3:96 cv 2156 (I:>|=M_;1 gl.; “ff IZ" ,
: ii; I FI :
v. ; i.5 :132 {:3* I
cLAu¤E LIGHT ET AL. : DATE: 0cT. 31, zooé" <—IF`I I
3 I
---------—--———-·--------—------------————-—— ······ ·---·--- ---)(
--------------------------------------------------------.-- X
DERRICK TAYLOR I
Z 3297 CV 1973 (DJS)(TPS)
v. Z
: I
A. RODRIGUEZ ET AL. I DATE: OCT. 31, 2003
—-—-——-———----—-———————·—·———-——---—---------------------—- x.
I
-------- ·· -----·-—-—·--~-·-—-·-- ··--··-···-· ---- -1 ·--------------- -X
DERRICK TAYLOR
: 3:00 CV 302 (EBB)
v. I
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG ET AL. DATEZ OCT. 31, 2003 I _
---------------------------------------------—------—------ x'
--..------------------------------------------------------- X
DERRICK TAYLOR _ \/
: 3:00 CV 787 (AVVT)
V. I
LARRY MYERS ET AL. DATE: OCT. 31, 2003
............»-...»......·..-·.---1..---»-------------------·»--»-»--»-»»»----xI l
I
A0 72A
IRev. 8/82I I
____ “'_"
I
I
I


I · r Case 3:00-cv-00787-AWT Document 30 Filed 10/31/2003 Page 2 of 2
1 `
MEMORANDUM OF STATUS CONFERENCE
Date of Conference: October 31, 2003 a
l Attorneys Present: Sarah Poston, Esq. (Pro Bono Counsel For Plaintiff)(by telephone) l I
Mr. Derrick Taylor (by telephone) I
Steven Strom, Esq. (For Defendants)(by telephone) I
DISCUSSIONS I
Brief discussions were held regarding plaintiff’s pro se Motions to Enforce
Settlement, filed in August-September 2003 (gg, Dkt. #67; Rodriguez, Dkt. #47; I
Armstrong, Dkt. #30; Myers, Dkt. #28). Counsel agreed to the deadlines set forth below. I
ORDERS I
1. By agreement of counsel, plaintiffs counsel will file supplemental briefs in support
of plaintiff’s motions on or before December 12, 2003, defendants will file their briefs in
opposition on or before January 12, 2004, and plaintiff may file a reply brief on or before
Januag; 23, 2004.
2. After review of these briefs, the Magistrate Judge will determine if an evidentiary
hearing is necessary, as argued by plaintiff, or if the issues can be determined on the I
papers, as argued by defendants.
3. The Magistrate Judge is available for such other conferences (which may be held I
telephonically) as may be necessary.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 31st day of October, 2003.
'@ ¤`iE» er Margolis
U. ‘. Magistrate Judge
I
2 I
I
iinclginl