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


File Size: 84.9 kB
Pages: 1
Date: April 7, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 405 Words, 3,463 Characters
Page Size: 612.48 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/20460/31.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut ( 84.9 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut
·— . _;________“_____._________t___-__j_.j__j__‘J
_‘—""“—"‘I
I Case 3:02-cv—02009—TPS D0cument31 Filed O4/06/2004 0f1
I W
I 23 II I
II I
N

I
II I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
II
».—.—————._..L_.._ I
JOHN W. BLASSINGAME, JR. : I
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ; I IIIII
10HN w. BLASSINGAME ; . III I
Plaintiff, I ; · I, · yam
: CIVIL ACTION III QI.
V- Z 302CVO2009(CF·D) ` IIII
: im; · I rzzr. I
YALE UNIVERSITY ; Q IM
Defendant. : FEBRUARY 25,;20()·4
'"I |IlI
MOTION TO RECONSIDER I
I I
il
I I
I I
I I I
I April 6, 2004. This motion is DENIED. As the defendant’s pposing I
papers point out, this motion falls short in several spects. I
‘ First, it is untimely. The ruling which movant seeks o have I
"reconsidered" was rendered in October 2003. The instant ·I·II was I
filed in February 2004, roughly four months later. Under ¤Ie Local I
Rules, motions to reconsider must be filed within l0 days. Second,
this motion is not accompanied by a memorandum, again in sregard
of the Local Rules. Third, the motion does not meet the tandard
for a true motion to reconsider. See eng., .• are _ . I
70 F.3d 367, 368 (2d cir 1995); .IIIII.. • v. I
822 F.supI;>. 870, 876 (D.c¤rm. i993>; I
I;opli1g, 25 F. Supp.2d I:II|I• 368 I I
(D.Conn. l998)(and the other cases cited in defendant’s oIIosition I
papers). Here, movant has presented the court with Ma olutely I
nothing to justify reconsideration. Finally, on the me M_. s, it
appears that the defendant most clearly did not ignore IIIIII
discovery requests, but instead interposed objectionsj thoM_MM_
· requests. At this juncture that is all that the defe ant I
required to do. , 1i rev
UAMM .... ...r.,_. MM. _ .».. I__ M © I
Thomas P. Smith ` ij I I
United States Magistrate Judge 7* _ I
II
M I
U
II I I I
.........._ "“"""’7r··———————·~··~. ...... A
..., aaiiii M llffiiiiiiiiiiieeeeees "`""‘‘‘‘>‘‘t······---- - ........ _ ______ _ ______ ` ````` ` `°`‘‘ ‘ ‘‘·¤=¤ ¤~·¤~
I I I ......._.__ Immmmw I °"""’°"’*’**··———————·~.,.. ...... A
_ ..1Q1 A axiiixi I I'Cf"F'ii'7*iir6r6er, '```"‘‘`’‘‘’····»·---- - ».....__ _ ______ _ ______ ` ```` ` `11` ` ‘‘‘‘ * I ¤==¤ ¤»...
I T I r_»_»>__>__ wanmtammw I .
.... _,,,A1 M lllffiiiiiiiiiieeeeees "`""‘‘‘‘>‘‘t······---- — »-»..... . ________ _ ____ ` ````` ` ``‘‘‘ I ‘‘·~=6 ¤~·.~
I T I M_MMMMMMMMM wanmtammw I .
...... A ,,,,1M M lllffiiiiiiiiiiieeeeee "```‘`‘‘*‘‘t·····~---- — »-»..... . ._______ _ ____ ` ````` ` ``‘‘‘ ‘ ‘**==I ~»—.~
I T I M_MMMMMMMMM wanmtammw I .
r—r,.. . .,__ V __MMMMMMMM _____MMMMMM MMMMMMM M