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

· · · I Case 3:02-cv-O21?2-AWT Document 31 Filed 05/€%2004 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTMCTIHEEE D t
DISTRICT OF CONNECT C ‘
nov SASrRoM AND Zuni: MAY — 5 A IU¤ 35
ROBERT KALMAN : CIVIL ACTION NO.
Pluint%v : Dol;kSt,l@ ; HAR TF ORD. Cll
V. Z
JAMES CASSIDY, PH.D., JD., AND
GARRELL MULLANEY, C.E.O. :
Defendants : MAY 5, 2004
t
DEFENDANTS’ THIQ) MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE THEIILMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 7(b), the defendants, James Cassidy,
Ph.D., J .D., and Garrell Mullaney, C.E.O , move for an enlargement of time to file their motion
for summary judgment. The defenda:nts’ motion for summary judgment is currently due on
May 10, 2004.
This Motion has become necessary because to date the defendants have not received the
plaintiffs responses to their discovery request, Defendunts’ First Set Of Interrogutories And
- l
Request For Production Of Documents Jo Ploint% which was mailed to them on August 13, i
2003. In accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37, counsel for the defendants
had attempted to resolve this issue without judicial intervention. The defendants were not able to j
resolve the issue of the outstanding disco very without judicial intervention and, therefore, were
forced to tiled a Motion for Order asking the court to either compel the plaintiffs to respond to
Defendonts’ First Set Of Interrogatories And Request For Production Of Documents To
Plaintmfs or to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
On February ll, 2004, the Court, (Martinez, J.) issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part, defendants’ Motion for Order. The Order stated in pertinent part: l


l
I i inn Case 3:02-cv-O21€2¤AWT Document 31 Filed 05/9562004 Page 2 of 4
ui -7-/I "‘·’ I
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ shall serve responses to the
defendants’ first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents
dated August 13, 2003 within 25 days of receipt of this order. [footnote 3]
The plaintiffs are on notice that failure to comply with the court’s order may
subject the plaintiffs to sanctions, including the dismissal of the action with
prejudice.
In a footnote, Magistrate Judge Martinez added:
[footnote] 3 Failure to respond or object to a discovery request in a timely manner
waives any objection which may have been available. Smith v. Conway I
Organization, Inc., 154 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Scott v. Arex, Inc., 124
F.R.D. 39, 41 (D.Conn. 1989.)
The plaintiffs have failed to serve responses to the defendants’ first set of interrogatories I
and requests for production of documents dated August 13, 2003 within 25 days of receipt of the
order. On April 30, 2004, Counsel for the defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions with a
memorandum in support asking the court to dismiss the plaintiffs action due to the failure of the
plaintiffs to comply with the court’s February ll, 2004 Order. I
The Counsel for the defendants has been diligently working on the motion for summary I
judgment. However, without the p1aintif`fs’ responses to the defendants’ discovery requests, the I
defendants are not able to meet the current deadline for summary judgment. Therefore, the
defendants are requesting an additional Hirty-five (45) days after the plaintiffs comply with the
defendants’ discovery request should the Court opt to give them the opportunity to comply
before dismissing this case.
Plaintiffs are involuntarily confined at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut
Valley Hospital. Cotmsel has not contacted the plaintiffs regarding this motion for enlargement
of time.
I
l
1_,_,__ __,__ ______________________________._ ....... . . l

' ` `xl Case 3:02-cv-O2132;AWT Document 31 Filed 05/63542004 Page 3 of 4
. \_ ~__/}
This is the det`endants’ third request for enlargement of time to tile their motion for I
summary judgment. I
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Richard J. Lynch I
Assistant Attorney General
ID 7(w¤m¤£t,E
BY: I
Patrick B. Kwanashie I
Assistant Attorney General I
_ Federal Bar N0. 09206
55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Tel: (860) 808-5210
Fax: (S60) 808-5385
Email: [email protected]
I
I
I
I
. I

l i in-_;_*—`h——m__—wl
l ` Case 3:02-cv-02132-lAWT Document 31 Filed 05/Q5!2004 Page 4 of 4
\ ln ‘\_" _1 _}
I i
I l
E QQEQRTIFICATION
l
4 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendants ’ Third Motion For Enlargement
of Time to File Their Motion for Summary} Judgment was mailed in accordance with Rule 5(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this Sth day of May, 2004, first class postage prepaid to:
Roy Sastrom
Whiting Forensic Institute
70 O’Brien Drive i
Middletown, CT 06457 \
Robert Kalman I
` Whiting Forensic Institute
70 O’Brien Drive ,
Middletown, CT 06457 P R q
Patrick B. Kwanashie {
Assistant Attorney General
i l