Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Q I I
.. ‘ A B fl. ai .;..5
E2 A DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT F _
2:) A ZM M? 2 is A ll}; lg *3
"O
STATE EMPLOYEES BARGAINING : A . A ` Y ’ { ,; ~, _
VO AGENT COALITION, ET AL, I : . S`, _? _
G) I
Jan`; Plaintiffs, :
Z! _ _. I
§ V. : CIV. NO. 3:03CV22l (AVC)
V M3 JOHN G. ROWLAND, ET AL, A _
-.~•
.-| I
3 Defendants. : MARCH I5, 2006
qi .
§ g` PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
-·—¢
.-1
rg; E, Plaintiffs State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition, etal, through counsel, respectfully
JJ KO · ·
Q g move this Court, pursuant to Local Rule 7(c), to reconsider its March l0, 2006 Order granting
sd N · I
36 defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Appeal on the ground that the Court’s Order was
-.-1 »—c
g -8 -_based on a mistaken understanding of the factual significance of the April 1, 2003 letter by
··4 Ls *1
E g= ¤€Comptroller Wyman attached to defendants’ March 9, 2006 Reply Memorandum.
cu F ' cn
GE Z; 5 As clarified by the attachments to plaintiffs’ Memorandum in support of this Motion, and
Q 5 r ·~
§ 8 Seas explained in plaintiffs’ Memorandum, Comptroller Wyman’s letter does not support the
$4 (IF (D
sg 35 < gfactual conclusion that the terminations at issue in this lawsuit were implemented pursuant to any
*1-6 522-..
g :>:plan submitted by Governor Rowland pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stats. §4-85 (b) or that he ever
~r··I JJ: `*U
lg) Li ginvoked that statute when ordering the terminations at issue in this action.
G) -I-J I-•<-E p
.4: CU
E··¤ U} V
Q .
" 2 rr iii; ° _
E3 8 Lf __
$3 ‘£ é NW {wi .
»~ “ E2 fl iv:
sr -¤ Q '“ °`‘‘‘ 1. fj E. B O fgze 131.
»<. u-i cn r