Free Order on Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

i I l ( ° ( I ~
I Qf wg t~ 0.901//é?0/m7‘AA
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Y _ _
CYNTHIA WELFARE, : CIVIL ACTION NO.
g Plaintw : 3:02CV2 (N .2 W
in .
5 •
Q PETER O’MEARA COMMISSIONER OF : (
,,5 THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL :
8 RETARDATION FOR THE STATE OF :
*10 CONNECTICUT : 1
g ' · Defendant : October 4, 2005 ` ‘ .:
FE I ei
Bi $3 cMOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(D ° . . lg ;_ i, . l
E Q T J The defendant respectfully requests permission to file a Motion for Summary Judgment.
r-I A » V ;
Q. r. This Court originally ordered all dispositive motions to be filed by June 28, 2003. As the
“’ - ii I `
C? rg j base went on, the date for filing of dispositive motions was advanced to accommodate the
Y? S discovery dates. The final date for tiling dispositive motions was set for September 30,
Q"
gi ( E` 2004. On July 6, 2004, defendant’s counsel (AAG Thomas Fiorentino) was transferred to a
r—1
ui A Q: different unit _in the Attomey Genera1’s Office and a new attorney for the defendant (AAG M.J.
cp
0
W McCarthy) filed an appearance in this matter. While both parties continued to complete
0O Q
"‘ Q interrogatories and depositions, defendant’s new counsel, due to the press of business, adjusting
Lt Ld
·§ Q to a new caseload, missed the deadline for filing a Motion for Summary Judgment.
.•.>
8 92 In the spring of 2005, a date was set for a settlement conference, which was to be held on
J June 22, 2005. The defendant’s ex-parte statement was timely submitted to the court. However,
due to a family emergency for plaintiffs counsel, the settlement conference was marked off and
has just been re—scheduled for February 9, 2006. (See attached) Although the time has past for
filing dispositive motions, defendant’s counsel now requests permission to file a Motion for
Summary Judgment at this point. The defendant believes that a Summary Judgment would be in