Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

r—·——·———-—--·--·~——·————-——--.. )--—--—·~—·-- —-; ?....~—.|....._.i\ _...- .._.._.- ___
_ _ Case 3:03-cv-OO6(€>5)JS DOCUITIGDI 58 Filed {

I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT j P
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ;» ····· g{`if`_°f ${**3
MARIO RICHARDS, : E li
on behalf of himself and : E., HON 65
all others similarly situated : ' *:03 `Cv0‘_ 630 (D S) 0
PLAINTIFFS· = i rr.; to it r_;ii;L1&=:i2` i
‘ : inli an U nf"-iii} `[ii.} iii} I
v. ;
COMPUTER SCIENCES Q
CORPORATION : DECEMBER 4, 2003
DEFENDANT. ; . q E
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTPS O 'IION T FILE
SUR-REPLY RE: PLAINTIFF’ MOTION FOR CLA S : R. IFICA ION
The plaintiff Mario Richards, submits this memorandum in oppdsition to
A
defendant’s motion for permission to file sur-reply to plaintiffs reply memorandum in
support of` motion for class certification and permission to serve notice class members.
Argument
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and permission to serve notice to
class members on September 2, 2003. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition on
!
October 14, 2003 and the plaihtiff filed a reply memorandum on Noveminer 17, 2P03.
Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the right to file ;
a sur-reply brief
Defendant has not shown prejudice or substantial reason for the court to allow a 0
sur-reply brief Defendant’s sole reason for requiring a sur-reply is that the plaintiff l
provided additional affidavits in cormection with his reply brief in support of class I
certification. Although the plaintiff did provide additional aidavits, there was not any




‘— ‘‘‘‘ L rwtttc“__*’_—"”“*“‘T""`—"""“*‘—‘_l‘”‘““‘t"t“—*‘lT‘;““"_—|
_ , Case 3:03-cv—OO6@e§)JS Document 58 Filed 12/6552003 Page 2 of 3 N
substantially new evidence, as the defendant suggests. The affidavits were signed by co- l
workers of the plaintiff who recited facts pertaining to their position with the company ,
and the circumstances regarding overtime hours. The contents zof the affidavits are
substantially similar and show that the co—workers are similarly situated ito the plaintiff
The affidavits do not contain new evidence.
The affidavits clearly show that the plaintiffs affidavit was not a ‘sham’ as
purported by the defendant in its memorandum in opposition. Defendant spent much l
time and elfort attacking the plaintiffs character in its memorandum in eiippositioir,
Surely, a sur—reply would be for that sole purpose as well. R
The discovery period closes on January 7, 2003 in this case. lf the defendant
were allowed to tile a sur—reply, this case would be closed before it were certined [or i
not]. Further, the plaintilf may require a response, thus causing even further delay. In
the meantime, much of plaintilfs discovery requests were objected to bythe
defendant on the grounds that the class was not certified. Such bootstrapping of the
T plaintiff in discovery is tmfair and unwarranted. I
Conclusion
The court must deny the defendant’s request to sur-reply brief iq this matter so X
that the issues of class certification and discovery be decided prior to the close of
discovery. . {
1
i
i


I ' l l l
" ·· Case 3:03-cv—OO6§09DJS Document 58 Filed 12(05`O2003 Page 3 of 3
Plaintifi I
Mario Richards

4/ l
Michael J. M6 A l
Fed. Bar No. 1ll7841 .
143 Oneco Avenue l
New London, CT 06320
Tcl; (860) 447-.1990
cen; (860) 989-9613 · 1 W

l
l
l
CERIIFICATION l
I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing was mailed on [ Z fjv 3
To: F
Tasos C. Paindiris, Esq. l *
William Anthony, Esq.
Jackson Lewis
55 Farmington Avenue
Suite 1200
Hmnod, C: 06105
Michae . e