Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 543

Filed 12/19/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

P.J., et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al. Defendants

: : : : : : :

CIVIL NO. 291CV00180(RNC)

DECEMBER 19, 2007

DEFENDANTS' MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' "MOTION TO COMPEL" Defendants in the above action respectfully request permission to amend their response (Doc. #541) to plaintiffs' "Motion to Compel," (Doc. #532) and accompanying memorandum (Doc. #533). Plaintiffs' pending motion is the result of a discovery dispute. On December 18, 2007, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)1 and according to schedule,2 defendants furnished plaintiffs with a supplemental response to plaintiffs March 30, 2007 "Motion for Disclosure and Production." Defendants believe that this disclosure will seriously narrow or possibly moot plaintiffs pending "Motion to Compel" and that the court would benefit greatly from reviewing its contents before considering plaintiffs' motion. Moreover, defendants believe
1

That rule provides, in pertinent part: (e) Supplementation of Disclosures and Responses. (1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) -- or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission -- must supplement or correct its disclosure or response: (A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing; or (B) as ordered by the court.

Defendants have repeatedly represented that they would provide plaintiffs with a longitudinal database this fall that would avoid the sharing of confidential information. See, e.g., "Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' `Motion to Compel,'" Doc. # 541 at 4-5.

2

1

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 543

Filed 12/19/2007

Page 2 of 3

that providing the court with a copy of their recent disclosure is consistent with the spirit of Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) which requires that in the event of a discovery dispute each side shall provide the court with "a specific verbatim listing of each of the items of discovery sought or opposed, and immediately following each specification shall set forth the reason why the item should be allowed or disallowed." Indeed, it may be that upon reviewing these materials plaintiffs will voluntarily withdraw their pending motion. In any event, it is respectfully requested that defendants be permitted to supplement their initial response.

DEFENDANTS STATE OF CONNECTICUT ET AL RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/__________________________ Darren P. Cunningham Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No. ct25380 P. O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel.: (860) 808-5210 Fax: (860) 808-5385 [email protected]

2

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 543

Filed 12/19/2007

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this 19th day of December, 2007, first class postage prepaid to:

The Honorable Donna Martinez United States Magistrate Judge 450 Main Street Hartford, CT 06103 David C. Shaw, Esq 34 Jerome Avenue, Suite 210 Bloomfield, CT 06002 Frank Laski, Esq Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee 294 Washington St., Suite 320 Boston, MA 02108

_________/s/_____________ Darren P. Cunningham Assistant Attorney General

3