Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 184 Filed 06/20/2008 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
**************************************
GARY SESSION * CIVIL ACTION NO.
PLAIN TIFF * 3:03-CV-00943 (AWT)
*
VS. *
CITY OF NEW HAVEN; STEPHEN * JUNE 20, 2008
COPPOLA; AND EDWIN RODRIGUEZ *
=¤=
DEFENDAN TS *
DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE PLAIN TIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
NOTICE OF FILING OF PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF
DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PRO. 26§C[ Q1} (Q)
The Defendant, Edwin Rodriguez, hereby replies to the Plaintiff’ s Response to the
Defendant’s Notice of Filing of Proposed Order Regarding Disclosure of Documents Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 (c) (1) (B), dated June 12, 2008. In support of his reply, the Defendant submits
the following:
1.) Counsel for the Defendant attempted to contact the Plaintiff twice, once via telephone
and once via e-mail, to discuss the proposed order with the Plaintiff (See attached Affidavit
of Attorney Meghan K. Gallagher).
2.) The Court’s ruling in cormection with the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order
(#139) and the Plaintiffs Cross Motion to Compel (#141), dated June 4, 2008, provided that
the Court would entertain a proposed order for the disclosure of documents to neutralize the
harm alleged by the Defendant, specifically in cormection with the release of information

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 184 Filed 06/20/2008 Page 2 of 3
harmful to his current employment, if submitted by the parties by June 12, 2008.
3.) The parties were unable to conference and reach an agreement, so the Defendant, in
accordance with the terms of the Court’s order, submitted his own proposed order and
supporting memorandum of law.
4.) Despite being dated June 12, 2008, the Plaintiffs response or alternative proposed order
was not filed with the Court by June l2, 2008. To date the Plaintiifs response does not
appear on the Court docket.
5.) Moreover, the Plaintiff’s response was not postmarked until June 14, 2008.
6.) At oral argument regarding the above-referenced discovery disputes, Plaintiff, through
counsel, offered to mitigate any potential harm to the Defendant by agreeing to limit the
terms of the production of documents.
7.) The proposed order submitted by the Defendant does not seek to preclude the production
of the documents to the Plaintiff Indeed, the Defendant’s order only seeks to prevent the
dissemination of these materials for purposes other than the instant litigation.
8.) The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court adopt the Defendant’s proposed order
as the terms of said order would prohibit the dissemination of materials that may be
potentially harmful to the Defendant’s ability to effectively engage in his profession and
would prevent the use of said materials in any setting unrelated to the current litigation.

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 184 Filed 06/20/2008 Page 3 of 3
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDAN T,
BY: /s/ Meghan K. Gallagher
Meghan K. Gallagher ct26914
Susman, Duffy & SegaloflQ P.C.
55 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
Phone: (203) 624-9830
Fax: (203) 562-8430
E-mail: mgallagher@susmanduf_fy.com
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on June 20, 2008 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and
served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-
mail to all parties by operation of the court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to
accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this tiling
through the court’s CM/ECF System.
/s/ Meghan K. Gallagher
Meghan K. Gallagher
Federal Bar No. ct 26914
Susman, Duffy & Segalofi P.C.
5 5 Whitney Ave.
New Haven, CT 06510
tel.: 203-624-9830
fax: 203-562-8430
mgallagher@susmanduf§.com
I:\Clier1t N-O\NHCITY\Session\Pleadings\Reply to Plaintiffs Response regarding Notice of Proposed Order.doc