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

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 15

Filed 02/10/2005

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ********************************* EMMANUEL SMITH * * Plaintiff * V. * * FLEET BANK * * Defendant * ********************************* CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:03-CV-1052 (DJS)

FEBRUARY 9, 2005

DEFENDANT'S LOCAL RULE 26(e) REPORT Date Complaint Filed: Date Complaint Served: Date of Defendant's Appearance: INTRODUCTION This is an action brought without counsel by a person in custody of the State of Connecticut. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(E)(iii), this action is exempt from the initial disclosure rules and also from the Rule 26(f) planning conference. A similar exemption, however, is not provided in Local Rule 26(e). As Defendant's counsel has not been contacted by or heard anything from Plaintiff, Defendant is filing its own version of the Local Rule 26(e) Report. On or about June 12, 2003 December 22, 2004 January 12, 2005

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 15

Filed 02/10/2005

Page 2 of 7

I.

CERTIFICATION The undersigned counsel certifies that, after consultation with its client, 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, in consultation with their clients, have developed the following proposed case management plan. Counsel further certifies that they have forwarded a copy of this report to their client. II. JURISDICTION Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is asserted pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983 and 28 USC Section 1343(a)(3). Defendant does not contest personal jurisdiction. III. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant violated Plaintiff's civil rights because Defendant turned over financial records to a "state agency." Defendant denies any wrongdoing and also claims that Plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The alleged wrongdoing occurred on various dates in April, May, and June of 2001, and the Complaint was not served on Defendant until December 22, 2004. The claim is therefore barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-577. 2

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 15

Filed 02/10/2005

Page 3 of 7

In addition, it is Defendant's position that the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, because Defendant did not perform any act that would come within the purview of Section 1983. IV. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant does not know if there are any material facts that are not in dispute. V. CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN A. Standing Order on Scheduling in Civil Cases. Defendant does not request modification of the deadlines in the Standing Order on Scheduling in Civil Cases. B. Scheduling Conference with the Court. Defendant does not request a pretrial conference with the Court before entry of a scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b). C. Early Settlement Conference. 1. Defendant certifies that it has considered the desirability of attempting to

settle the case before undertaking significant discovery or motion practice. Defendant does not yet know if settlement is or is not likely at this time. 2. Defendant requests an early settlement conference. 3

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 15

Filed 02/10/2005

Page 4 of 7

3. magistrate judge. 4.

Defendant prefers a settlement conference with the presiding judge or a

Defendant does not request a referral for Alternative Dispute Resolution

pursuant to Local Rule 16. D. Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. Defendant has already filed its Answer to the Complaint. E. Discovery. 1. directed to Plaintiff. 2. 3. 4. Defendant does not anticipate the need for any expert witnesses. Discovery will not be conducted in phases. Defendant cannot estimate when discovery should be concluded until Plaintiff Defendant has already filed Interrogatories and Request for Production

has responded to Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production. 5. fact witnesses. 6. 7. Defendant will not request permission to serve more than 25 interrogatories. At this time, Defendant does not intend to call expert witnesses at trial. 4 At this time, Defendant does not know if it will require the deposition of any

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 15

Filed 02/10/2005

Page 5 of 7

F.

Dispositive Motions. Dispositive motions will be filed on or before 90 days after Plaintiff responds to

Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production. G. Joint Trial Memorandum. The Joint Trial Memorandum required by the Standing Order on Trial Memoranda in Civil Cases will be filed by 180 days after Plaintiff responds to Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production. VI. TRIAL READINESS. The case will be ready for trial by 60 days after the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum. As an Officer of the Court, the undersigned counsel agrees to cooperate with Plaintiff and the Court to promote the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of this action.

DEFENDANT, FLEET BANK 5

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 15

Filed 02/10/2005

Page 6 of 7

By______________________________ Gerald L. Garlick, Esq. of Krasow, Garlick & Hadley, LLC One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 549-7100 Facsimile: (860) 728-1651 Email: [email protected] Federal Bar No ct05627

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed this 9th day of February, 2005 to the following Pro Se Plaintiff: 6

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 15

Filed 02/10/2005

Page 7 of 7

Mr. Emmanuel Smith Inmate No. 232549 MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution 1153 East Street South Suffield, CT 06080 ____________________________ Gerald L. Garlick

000233/00054/lib002/23502.1

7