Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 123-2

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT GARY SESSION, Plaintiff V. EDWIN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. Defendants AUGUST 30, 2007 CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-cv- 00943 (AWT)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY INTRODUCTION Plaintiff respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of his renewed Motion to Enlarge Time to Complete Discovery following the Court's recent ruling on the individual Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a federal civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff alleged that the individual Defendants, former New Haven, Connecticut police officers Edwin Rodriguez and Stephen Coppola knowingly and recklessly caused him to be wrongfully arrested on a charge of murder and that as a consequence, he was falsely imprisoned for nearly one (1) year before all charges against him were dropped. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant City of New Haven is liable for the actions of the individual defendant officers. Plaintiff was originally represented in this matter by the law firm of Philip Russell, P.C. This matter was alternately handled by Attorney Russell, Attorney David Feldman and more recently Attorney Karen Mayer of Philip Russell, P.C. In October 1

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 123-2

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 2 of 5

2006, the undersigned filed an appearance in addition to those of the above named attorneys. The undersigned is a solo practitioner with a busy civil and criminal litigation practice. When the undersigned appeared, he received fourteen (14) legal size accordion folders packed with documents including sixty (60) plus pleadings in this case, an entire pleading file from the underlying state court criminal case, dozens of police reports, transcripts of various official proceedings including the hearing in probable cause in the state court criminal case and depositions in this case, numerous witness statements and vast amounts of legal research. It took months for the undersigned to become sufficiently familiar with the enormous complexities of this case. Soon after my appearance in this case, I began moving my law office. Starting on October 30, 2006, I moved my offices from Westport to Southport and began the process of merging portions of my practice with that of another attorney. In addition to the ordinary inconveniences and problems associated with any move, my move was beset by a number of other difficulties including problems with the computer system that interfered with a smooth transition from one office to another. When the undersigned appeared, there had been a protracted dispute over written discovery that was only partially resolved after a hearing before the Hon. Magistrate Donna Martinez on October 20, 2006. The Defendants were ordered to produce certain documents within one (1) week. In fact, the production was not made for over a month. Pursuant to a prior order of this Court, discovery was to have been completed by December 20, 2006. In early November, the undersigned served deposition subpoenas

2

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 123-2

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 3 of 5

upon a number of fact witnesses in the hope of completing the depositions prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline. That discovery plan, for the reasons set forth above, proved overly optimistic and the undersigned simply could not be prepared in time to proceed with the depositions. On December 22, 2006, the individual Defendants re-filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff was ordered to respond by January 12, 2007 without the benefit of any additional discovery. Plaintiff did respond by January 12, 2007. On January 12, 2007, the Defendant City of New Haven renewed its own Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed his Objection to that Motion for Summary Judgment. That Motion is still pending before the Court. On March 21, 2007, Doc, No, 107, Plaintiff moved to Enlarge Time to Complete Discovery until May 31, 2007. On May 19, 2007, Doc. No. 116 by electronic order, the Court denied the Plaintiff's March 21, 2007 Motion to Enlarge Time to Complete Discovery "without prejudice to renewal after the court issues its rulings on the defendants motions for summary judgment (Docs 89 and 93)." On August 20, 2007, Doc. Number 122, the Court granted in part and denied in part the individual defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court granted judgment in favor of the Defendants Coppola on all counts and in favor of the Defendant Rodriguez on the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress counts only. The Court has not yet ruled upon the Defendant City of New Haven's Motion for Summary Judgment.

3

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 123-2

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff now renews his March 21, 2007 Motion to Enlarge Time to Complete Discovery, Doc. No. 107, based upon the Court's recent ruling and for the factual and legal arguments set forth in Document No. 107 which are repeated and realleged herein. It is now apparent that this matter, at least with respect to the individual defendant Edwin Rodriguez will be proceeding to trial. In order to fairly and properly present his case to a jury, the Plaintiff requires additional discovery in the form of depositions of the defendant and various fact witnesses and the production of certain documents. Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Plaintiff moves for an enlargement of time up to and including November 15, 2007 within which to complete discovery in this matter.

THE PLAINTIFF GARY SESSION

By /Roy S. Ward/ Roy S. Ward, Esq. 3695 Post Road, Suite 203 Southport, CT 06890 Tel: (203) 255-9829 Fax: (203) 255-9839 Email: [email protected] Fed. Bar. No. ct11618

4

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 123-2

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on August 30, 2007 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 filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.

_____/Roy S. Ward/____ Roy S. Ward

5