Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Pursue Discovery
Public Court Documents
July 14, 1992
5 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Pursue Discovery, 1992. 59c6777e-a246-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/49ea4490-a25b-40e6-bf4d-62f3debbd777/defendants-motion-for-extension-of-time-in-which-to-pursue-discovery. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
: : S35 MacKenzie Hall
RICHARD BLUMENTIIAI abide
sa oe : 110 Sherman Street
ATFORNEY GENERAL 3 gE
Hartford. CT 06103
FAX (203) 523-553
( Mice of The Attorney ( yc1eral ; he 4 Tel: 566-7173
State of Connecticut
July 14,°1992
The Honorable Harry Hammer
Judge of the Superior Court
P. O. Box 325
Rockville, Connecticut 06066
RE: Sheff v., O'Neill
Dear Judge Hammer:
Enclosed please find a copy of Defendants' Motion for
Extension of Time within which to Pursue Discovery, which was
filed today in Superior Court.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
mgd a
ar. /
7 ftha Ma
MMW: sad
Enc.
co All Counsel of Record
NO. CV-89-0360977 S
MILO SHEFF, ET Al. : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL. 3 JULY 14, 71992
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME IN WHICH TO PURSUE DISCOVERY
The defendants move for an extension of time up to and
including September 1, . 1992 in ‘which. to serve all further
Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and to serve and
file with the court all Requests for Admission. This additional
time is necessary because plaintiffs are not scheduled to file
"full and up to date supplemental responses" to defendants' first
set of Interrogatories until August 15, 1992, see Plaintiffs’
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Order of
Compliance dated June 12, 1992 and Findings and Orders of the
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED
Ccurt dated June 18, 1992, and plaintiffs' supplemental responses
may raise issues that will warrant further discovery.
Defendants' counsel have communicated with plaintiffs’
counsel, who represent that they object to this motion for
extension of time.
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ZL fii Ll /
&Ttha M. Watts - Jurdis406172
[Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Tel, 566-7173
ORDER
1] 1 I
For good cause shown the foregoing motion 1s hereby
GRANTED /DENIED.
By the Court
CERTIFICATION
This is
copy oi the foregoing was
record:
John Brittain, Esq.
University of Connecticut
School of Law
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, "CT 06105
Philip Tegeler, Esq.
Martha Stone, Esq.
Connecticut Civil
Liberties Union
32 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Ruben Franco, Esq.
Jenny Rivera, Esq.
Puerto Rican Legal Defense
and Education Fund
99 Hudson Street
14th Floor
New York, NY 10013
John A. P.well, Esq.
Helen Hershkoff, Esq.
Adam S§. Cohen, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union
132 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
to: certify ‘that: on this 14th day of July,
/
19892 ‘a
mailed to the following counsel of
Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq.
Hispanic Advocacy Project
Neighborhood Legal Services
1229 Albany Avenue
Hartford, CT . 06112
Wesley W. Horton,
Moller, Horton &
Fineberg, P.C.
90 Gillett Street
Hartford, CT . 06105
Esq.
Julius L. Chambers,
Marianne Lado, Esq.
Ronald Ellis, Esq.
Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and
Education Fund,
99 Hudson Street
New York,
Inc.
NY 10013
State of Connecticut
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MacKENZIE HALL
110 SHERMAN STREET
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105
Julius L. Chambers Esq
Marianne Lado Esqg
Ronald Ellis Esg
NAACP Legal Defense Fund & Ed. Fund, 99 Hudson Street
New York NY 10013