Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Second Amended Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories

Correspondence
August 14, 1992

Cite this item
Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Second Amended Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories preview

3 pages

Includes Correspondence from Tegeler to Clerk.

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Second Amended Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, 1992. c5b59d84-a246-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8d4353c9-349c-4e67-ab8c-a43855c7501e/motion-for-extension-of-time-to-file-plaintiffs-second-amended-responses-to-defendants-first-set-of-interrogatories. Accessed July 29, 2025.

    Copied!

    FOUNDATION 
ThirtyTwo Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 Fax 203/728-0287 

August 14, 1992 

Clerk of the Court 
Superior Court 
95 Washington Street 
Hartford, . CT 06106 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill, Cv89-0360977S 
  

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Please forward the attached Motion to Judge Hammer, who has 
responsibility for the above-captioned case. 

Sincerely, 

Wp Fz 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

PDT/dmt 

Attachment 

CC: All Counsel 

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 
a5 

 



Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

v. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants August 14, 1992 

  

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED 
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

  

The Plaintiffs move for an extension of time of nine days to 

Monday, August 24, 1992, to file Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Responses 

to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. The reason for this 

Motion is to provide one additional week for internal review of   plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses in light of plaintiffs’ counsel’s 

differing vacation schedules. 

Defendants have been contacted and do not oppose this Motion. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

WY Geel 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

  

Attorney for Plaintiffs        



      

ORDER 

For good cause shown, the foregoing Motion is hereby ordered 

GRANTED/DENIED. 

  

Hammer, J. 

DATE: 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been mailed 

postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Martha M. Watts, Assistant 

Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 

06105 cits [YY Tay of sumust, 1993 

HP Fer 
  

Philip D. Tegeler

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top