Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 79

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WILLIAM CONNELLY v. DAVID COSGROVE, ET AL : : : : : : : :

CIV. NO. 3:00CV720 (JCH)

SCHEDULING ORDER AND RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL A telephone conference was held on April 5, 2006 to discuss the status of this case and to prepare the case for trial. For

the reasons that follow, plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Doc. #71] is GRANTED in accordance with the schedule set forth below. Procedural Background Due to the age of this case, some procedural background is helpful. On November 21, 2003, plaintiff filed his Second

Amended Complaint. [Doc. 44]. On September 30, 2004, the Court dismissed all the monetary damages claims against all defendants in their official capacities and all other claims against defendants Wollenhaupt, Silvis, Clerk of the Court, and John and Jane Does 8-11 in their entirety. [Doc. #51]. The case was

permitted to proceed as to the individual capacity claims against Virginia Golemba, Mark Strange, John O'Neill, Christine Whidden, C.O. Serrano and John Cupka, as well as the official capacity claim for injunctive relief against Cupka. [Doc. #51]. was instructed to serve the complaint on defendants. Plaintiff Id. After

several extensions, service was not perfected until approximately June/July 2005. [Doc. #60, 61].

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 79

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 2 of 3

On September 7, 2005, defendants' counsel filed an appearance. [Doc. #62]. Defendants' Answer to the Amended Complaint was due on October 14, 2005, [doc. #64]. After

plaintiff filed a Motion for Default on January 3, 2006, [doc. #70], defendants filed their Answer on January 5, 2006. [Doc. #68]. In accordance with the scheduling order dated September

14, 2005, discovery closed on January 14, 2006, and dispositive motion were due by February 14, 2006. [Doc. #64]. No motions for

extension of time were filed to extend these deadlines, and no dispositive motions were filed. This case was referred on March

8, 2006, for a pretrial conference. [Doc. #74]. At plaintiff's request, the Court agreed to seek pro bono counsel to represent plaintiff. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Pending is plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery dated February 23, 2006 [Doc. #71]. Defendants have not filed a

response to the motion. After discussion, the following schedule was set. Defendants will comply with plaintiff's discovery requests by Friday, April 28, 2006. Defendants' counsel will provide the Defendants' counsel should

discovery to pro bono counsel.

contact the Court on or before Friday, April 28, 2006, if no appearance has been filed on behalf of plaintiff. Defendants agreed to search for and produce a Form RT-60. Plaintiff explained that this is a DOC form that documents the dates an inmate is incarcerated at a specific institution. Defendants will produce Form RT-60, or its equivalent, or state

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 79

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 3 of 3

under oath that the form, or its equivalent, does not exist. Defendants will respond to this request by Friday, April 28, 2006. If plaintiff decides to file a Third Amended Complaint prior to appointment of counsel, he is advised to file a Motion to Amend the Second Amended Complaint and to attach a copy of the proposed Third Amended Complaint. Defendants will respond within twenty-one (21) days. The parties are encouraged to contact the Court as issues arise in complying with this ruling and order. Any requests for

extension of the Court's deadlines must be made in advance of the deadline and must be made directly to Judge Hall. This is not a recommended ruling. This is a discovery

ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly erroneous" statutory standard of review. 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges. As such, it

is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the district judge upon motion timely made. ENTERED at Bridgeport this 7th day of April 2006.

_______/s/_________________ HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE