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

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 119-3 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 1 014
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 1 19-3 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 2 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
GARY SESSION, CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff 3:03-cv- 00943 (AWT)
V.
EDWIN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. JUNE 7, 2007
Defendants
LOCAL RULE 56§a)§2) STATEMENT
A. Reply to Defendants’ City of New Haven’s Local Rule 56a(1)
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
Pursuant to Local Rule 56(a)(2), the Plaintiff submits the following reply to the
Defendants City of New Haven’s’ Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement.
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Denied.
4. Denied.
B. PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56(a)(2) STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
1.-107. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference herein
numbers 1-104 of Plaintiff s Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts dated
January 12, 2007.

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 1 19-3 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 3 of 4
108. In 2001, the Defendant Rodriguez was reprimanded by the New Haven
Police Department for misconduct occurring during a photo identification procedure in
either 1997 or 1998.
109. That the testimony of the Defendant Rodriguez set forth in Exhibit D is
true and accurate.
110. That the conduct of Defendant Rodriguez in failing to include exculpatory
information obtained during the witness interview described in Exhibit D, in his
translation of the statement, in his police report and in the arrest warrant affidavit
occurred prior to the his involvement in the Lucky investigation.
111. That in Golino v. New Haven, the City of New Haven and individual New
Haven Police Officers were found liable for violations of the Plaintiff s civil rights.
112. That in Ham v. Greene, the City of New Haven and individual New
Haven Police Officers were found liable for violations of the Plaintiff’ s civil rights.
2

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 1 19-3 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on June 7, 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/
3