Free Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 58.9 kB
Pages: 5
Date: September 8, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,147 Words, 7,196 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/23036/38.pdf

Download Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of Connecticut ( 58.9 kB)


Preview Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:03-cv-00665-MRK

Document 38

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT TERRENCE HENDERSON PLAINTIFF, v. THE TOWN OF GREENWICH POLICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDANT. : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL NO. 3:03 CV-00665-MRK

September 8, 2005

FORM 26(f) REPORT OF PARTIES' PLANNING MEETING LIST OF ALL PARTIES: 1. Raymond J. Rigat, Esq. For the Plaintiff Gilbride & Rigat 23 East Main Street Clinton, CT 06413 Tel: 860-669-3273 Fax: 860-669-3495 e-mail: [email protected] Federal Bar No. ct13320 Valerie E. Maze, Esq. Federal Bar No. CT 14080 For the Defendant Town of Greenwich Police Department Greenwich Town Attorney's Office Town Hall, P.O. Box 2540 Greenwich, CT 06836-2540 Tel. (203) 622-7877 Fax. (203) 622-3816 [email protected]

2.

DATE OF COMPLAINT FILED: April 14, 2003

DATE COMPLAINT SERVED: Summons returned executed on April 16, 2003.

Case 3:03-cv-00665-MRK

Document 38

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 2 of 5

DATE OF DEFENDANT'S APPEARANCE: May 5, 2003.

Pursuant to Fed.Rul.Civ.P. 16(b), 26(f) and local rule 26(e) the undersigned counsel for the parties conferred on August 22, 2005. The participants were Raymond J. Rigat, Esq. for the plaintiff and Valerie E. Maze, Esq. for the defendant.

I. CERTIFICATION: Undersigned counsel certify that they have discussed the nature and basis of the parties' claims and defenses and any possibilities for achieving a prompt settlement or other resolution of the case and have developed the following proposed case management plan. Counsel further certify that they have forwarded a copy of this report to their clients. II. JURISDICTION:
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The case against the defendant presents a

federal question. The plaintiff brings this case against the defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3). Defendant disputes subject matter jurisdiction as to named defendant. See motion to dismiss on file. Personal Jurisdiction: Is contested III. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CASE:
A. Claims of Plaintiff: The plaintiff was wrongly arrested, on or about December

20, 2001, by the police who unlawfully engaged in racial profiling.
B. Defenses and Claims: The defendant denies all material claims of the plaintiff

and has raised affirmative defenses including but not limited to lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. . IV. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS: Counsel certify that they have made a good faith attempt to determine whether there are any material facts that are not in dispute. The parties state that the following material facts are undisputed: The plaintiff

Case 3:03-cv-00665-MRK

Document 38

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 3 of 5

was arrested by the police on or about December 20, 2001 by agents of the Greenwich Police Department. V. CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN: A. Standing Order on Scheduling in Civil Cases. The parties at this time request a modification of deadlines in the Standing Order on Scheduling in Civil Cases as follows: Amendment of the Pleadings; Motions to Dismiss; Formal Discovery; and Motions for Summary Judgment. B. Scheduling Conference with the Court. The parties request a pretrial conference with the court before entry of a scheduling order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 (b). The parties prefer a conference in person or by telephone. C. Early Settlement Conference. 1. The parties certify that they have considered the desirability of attempting to settle the case before undertaking significant discovery or motion practice. Settlement is unlikely at this time. The parties do not request an early settlement conference. The parties prefer a settlement conference with a magistrate judge. The parties do not request a referral for alternative dispute resolution pursuant to D.Conn.L.Civ.R 36.

2. 3. 4.

D. Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. 1. Plaintiff seeks until December 8, 2005 to file motions to join additional parties and until January 8, 2006 file motions to amend the pleadings. Defendant objects to joinder of additional parties and any substantive proposed amendments of the pleadings. Defendant does not anticipate filing any motion to join additional parties. Defendant should have 30 days after an amended complaint is filed to file a response to the amended complaint, if amended.

2.

E. Discovery. 1. The parties anticipate that discovery will be needed on the following subjects: all the plaintiffs claims, all the affirmative allegations of the defense, prior history of the parties, and damages.

Case 3:03-cv-00665-MRK

Document 38

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 4 of 5

2.

All discovery, including depositions of expert witnesses pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (b) (4), will be commenced immediately and completed by February 28, 2006. Discovery will not be conducted in phases. The parties anticipate that the plaintiff will require a total of five depositions of fact witnesses and that the defendant will require a total of ten depositions of fact witnesses. The depositions will commence immediately and be completed by February 28, 2006. The parties may request permission to serve more than twenty-five (25) interrogatories. The plaintiff intends to call expert witnesses at trial. Plaintiff will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. (a)(2) by a date no later than November 1, 2005, and depositions for such experts will be completed by a date not later than the discovery cutoff date. Defendant intends to call expert witnesses at trial. Defendant will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) (2) by a date no later than December 15, 2005. Depositions for such experts will be completed by a date not later than the discovery cutoff date. A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a claim or counterclaim for damages by November 1, 2005.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

F. Dispositive Motions. Dispositive motions will be filed on or before April 1, 2006. G. Joint Trial Memorandum. The joint trial memorandum required by the standing Order on Trial Memoranda in Civil Cases will be filed by May 1, 2006 or thirty days after this court rules on any summary judgment motion filed by the defendants, whichever is later. VI. TRIAL READINESS. The case will be ready for trial by June 1, 2006 or thirty days after the joint trial memorandum is filed, whichever is later. As officers of the court, undersigned counsel agree to cooperate with each other and the court to promote the just ,speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action.

Case 3:03-cv-00665-MRK Plaintiff

Document 38

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 5 of 5

BY:________________________________ Raymond J. Rigat, Esq. Gilbride & Rigat 23 East Main Street Clinton, CT 06413 Tel: 860-669-3273 Fax: 860-669-3495 e-mail: [email protected] Federal Bar No. ct 13320 Defendant BY:________________________________ Valerie E. Maze, Esq. Town Hall, Law Department Town Hall, P.O. Box 2540 Greenwich, CT 06836-2540 Tel. (203) 622-7877 Fax. (203) 622-3816 [email protected]eenwichct.org

Date:____________________

Date:_____________________