Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Take Despositions

    NO. CV-B9-0360977"8 

SUPERIOR COURT MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 

: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

Vv. : HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

: AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL. JULY 28,1992 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS 
  

The defendants hereby move for an extension of the deadline 

for the taking of depositions set in the outstanding scheduling 

order. The defendants ask that the deadline be extended from 

September 15,” 1992 to October 15, 1992, in. support of this 

motion the defendants offer the following: 

: 3 The defendants first attempted to establish a schedule 

for taking the depositions of the plaintiffs' witnesses in a | 

letter to the plaintiffs attorneys dated December 12, 1991. In a | 

letter dated January 8, 1992 the plaintiffs' attorneys declined | 

the invitation to begin scheduling depositions of their witnesses | 

until a comprehensive scheduling order was issued by the Court. 

2. On April 10, 1992 the Court entered a scheduling order | 

which provided that the depositions in this case should be | 

 



  

  

  

    

    

conducted between April 15, 1992 and September 15, 1992. The 

order went on to provide that "any deposition sought to be taken 

after September 15, 1992 must be permitted by order of the court 

or by stipulation, for good cause shown." 

3 On April 16, 1992 the defendants issued deposition 

notices and subpoenas for the witnesses who had been identified 

by the plaintiffs as of that date. 

4. Both sides have engaged in a good faith effort to 

schedule depositions at the earliest possible date given the 

availability of the Witnesses and schedules of counsel. The 

parties agreed to set aside Tuesdays and Thursdays of each week 

for depositions. Numerous changes in this schedule were necessary 

for a host of legitimate reasons. To date only two (2) of the | 

depositions which the defendants noticed back in April have taken 

place and one of these has not yet been completed.’l’ 

5. In an effort to meet the September 15, 1992 deadline | 

the parties agreed to schedule thirteen (13) depositions on 

twelve (12) different days between August 25, 1992 and September | 

  

1/ During the deposition which has not been completed the 

plaintiffs' attorneys instructed the witness not to answer 

numerous questions posed by defense counsel. A motion for an 

order: of compliance will be filed shortly after the 

transcript of the deposition is received. The defendants’ 
expect to resume the deposition after that motion is 

granted. 

 



  

  

  

  

  

15, 199%. Subsequent to that agreement the plaintiffs 

unilaterally noticed nine (5S) additional depositions for the same 

time period. According to. ° the schedule of depositions 

unilaterally set by the plaintiffs' attorneys the entire time 

period from August 24 through September 15 would be taken up by 

depositions, and still there would be more depositions to take. 

While 1t may be realistic for a team of lawyers from a number of 

different firms and legal services organizations, like the 

plaintiffs’ team, to accommodate such a schedule, it is 

completely unrealistic to expect that the assistant attorneys 

general assigned to represent the defendants in thls case can do | 

the same, 

6. Given the multitude of demands on the assistant 

attorneys general who are responsible for this case along with a | 

number of other highly complex cases, a schedule which sets aside | 

two days each week (Tuesdays and Thursdays) for depositions in] 

this matter is a reasonable schedule which will not unduly delay | 

trial. 

gah It should be understood that this request for Wis 

extension of time until October ‘15, 1992 is made only for the | 

purposes of accommodating the defendants' need to take the | 

depositions of plaintiff witnesses whose depositions have not yet | 

 



  

  

  

  

  

been scheduled 2¥ Furthermore, the amount of additional time 

requested is based on the assumption that the plaintiffs will 

make their witnesses available on the Tuesdays an Thursdays 1n 

September and October for which the depositions will be 

scheduled. Since plaintiffs' attorneys have recently 1ssued 

deposition notices for nine (9) additional people which cannot 

be accommodated before October 15, 1992 the Court should expect a 

further request for an extension of the deadline for taking 

depositions from the plaintiffs. 

9. On July 23, 1992 defendants' counsel spoke with 

plaintiffs' counsel in regard to the scheduling of depositions on 

Tuesdays and Thursdays after September 15, 1992 until those 

depositions are completed. Plaintiffs' counsel indicated they 

objected to such a plan. 

10. This is the defendants first request for an extension 

of time to take depositions in this matter. 

  

2/ One of the depositions noticed in April has not yet been 

scheduled because the plaintiffs cancelled the date 
previously set for the deposition and have not yet advised 

the defendants when this witness will be available. On July 

15, 1992 the plaintiffs disclosed six new expert witnesses 

and these depositions have yet to be scheduled as well. 

—-4 - 

 



  

  

  
  

  

WHEREFORE, 

take depositions, 

the defendants request an extension of time to 

giving them until October 15 .. 19952, 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

    

By: A 

  

  
"Jdhn R. Whelan 
¥ssistant Attorn 

artha M. Watts 

  

= Juris 85112 
ey General 
- Juris 406172 

Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, Connec 
Tel. 566-7173 

ticut- 06105 

 



hereby 1S motion foregoing 

  
By the Court 

ORDER 

the cause shown good Fo 2 

GRANTED "DENIED. 

| 
| 

[| 

{ 

i 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 



  

  
I CERTIFICATION   

This is to certify that on:this 28th day of July, 1992 a 

copy ©0f the foregoing was mailed to the following counsel of 

  

record: 

| John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 
| University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 
| School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 
II 65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
|. Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 | 
i 

| Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Il Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & 
I Connecticut Civil Fineberg, P.C. | 

Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street 
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06105 

i Hartford, CT 06105 

| Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chambers, Esq. | 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. | 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Ronald Ellis, Esq. 

| and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
{| 99 Hudson Street Education Fund, Inc. | 
Il 14th Floor 99 Hudson Street | 

| New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 
| Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 

Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

/] 

7 / of / 

7 v 7A              
  

Jo{ R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 

/ 

     



State of Connecticut 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

MacKENZIE HALL 

110 SHERMAN STREET 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105 

JULIUS L CHAMBERS ESQ 

MARIANNE LADO ESQ > 

RONALD ELLIS ESQ g 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & ED FUND 

99 HUDSON ST 

NEW YORK N Y 10013 

TU Lm nin anam