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


File Size: 54.6 kB
Pages: 1
Date: May 5, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 376 Words, 2,624 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/20552/28.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut ( 54.6 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut
{ .. Case 3:02-cv-02101-AVC Document 28 Filed 05/O4/2004 P [ KTL
{ ’ COD O A I {
f ct.
Z0"ti * i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U APF? Eg ,:3 It ·
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT at _ g ` 32
{ CYNTHIA WELFARE ; crvn. Acr1oN NO. ;T* if
I Plaifnrgf : 3:02CV2l01 (AVC) N, V " ‘ l
{ : "‘ "
- v. : {
{ PETER O’MEARA, COMMISSIONER i
· DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL :
RETARDATION : I
Defendant : April 29, 2004 .
{ @NT MOTION FOR AN EXPANSION OF DISCOVERY AND PRE-TRIAL
{ {DEADLINES
{ Pursuant to Rule 9(b) ofthe Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Discovery in the above- {
{ captioned matter is set to close on May ll, 2004. The parties hereby request an additional fifty
days to complete discovery, and ask that the other pre-trial deadlines in this matter be similarly
extended.
6 This is the fourth request for an expansion of the discovery period and pre—trial deadlines.
2 The parties have been pursing the litigation in good faith, having both served discovery requests, {
i n l
D _ including the defendant’s request dated January 20, 2004. The defendant served a notice of 5
0 .o
iii depositi&`1 dated April 15, 2004 on the plaintiff to take the plaintiffs deposition on April 27,
Q S15! ga:
QM 2394. ¤ °;’
*·-ca
* Q J -Q-Q: . . . . .
C] ··.,, bi $@5 plaintiffs counsel requested a. postponement of that deposition because of difficulty ;
M """ t—..
•:~· —¤.. "" 22 _,,
Q LE ge ha?b§ountered in contacting the plaintiff to prepare her for the deposition. The plaintiff is {
tx. »-• S3 — l
U Q: currétftly out on medical leave from the Department of Mental Retardation which may have {
§ Eli contributed to the scheduling difficulties At the direction of the defendanfs counsel, employees i
N cd { _ {
— E of the department of mental retardation have contacted the plaintiff and asked her to contact her {
¥>· 2
ru O I
z ca
i
· , _ei,f A .-as ......e . 44;;;-. 5
§;{,§§.‘;§$j§%€€’Z*££‘a¥i;?§.ii%,Tz!€'»?Zii>;’{*a‘ii*.25’a¥’f?£1'?LT$Iz."?Ri‘??.?2?.2’?Ei*E?1·".iZi?&`*·Z»’i3Ti’%`s?¥2"¤.=:s·2#:r»Zi-¤¢¤·.·s·s??S¢ ; giis ·; 1;*;* 5 - - = =———-I-—- - E I _ ,___ ,,g__u_i:Q_l¥M;_# 1;%
, 1 -i-a A ee, -;-. LTL ;;;;f-.; 5
q¤s,¤.·s~;.;Ze§ €?=?if"; 1; =;—· ;= · — J =~—:—f» --2 ____, ,_,i§F_w4_L¥_¢;$;F; im;