Jackson v. Waterbury Police Dept et al

Filing 32

ORDER FOR STATUS REPORT (see attached) - In order for the Court to determine whether this matter is ready for the trial list, each party is ordered to separately submit to the Court, and to serve by mail on all other parties, a status report as detai led in the text of this Order, on or before Thursday, June 20, 2013. Failure to do so on the part of any party may result in sanctions being imposed on the offending party. Such sanctions may include prohibiting the offending party from raising certain issues or calling certain witnesses, or dismissal of the action. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 5/20/13.(Hornstein, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ROBERT JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
3:11-CV-00642 (CSH)
WATERBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
LAWRENCE SMITH, and TIMOTHY
KLUNTZ,
Defendants.

ORDER FOR STATUS REPORT

On April 21, 2011, Defendants Waterbury Police Department, Lawrence Smith, and Timothy
Kluntz (hereafter collectively, "Defendants") removed this civil rights action from the Connecticut
Superior Court. [Doc. 1]. Defendants then filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, denying
Plaintiff’s allegations and asserting five affirmative defenses. [Doc. 8]. The deadline for the filing
of dispositive motions, which was thirty (30) days after the Court's June 5, 2012 Order which ruled
on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Motion for Joinder, has long since passed. See [Docs. 26 and
30]. No party has made any filing subsequent to the Court's June 5, 2012 Order.
Accordingly, to determine whether this matter is now ready for the trial list, each party is
ordered to separately submit to the Court, and to serve by mail on all other parties, a status report

answering the following questions:
1.

Is this matter ready for trial? If not, why not?

2.

Is additional discovery necessary? If a party needs further discovery, that party shall

state the nature and scope of the discovery needed and provide an estimate of the time required to
complete it.
3.

Are any more pretrial motions contemplated? If yes, the party intending to file any

such pretrial motion shall describe the type of motion and state the time needed to file it.
4.

What relief does the Plaintiff seek? Be specific.

5.

How long will it take each party to present its side of the case?

6.

How many witnesses does each party plan to call? List their names and addresses,

and indicate whether any prospective witness is incarcerated.
7.

What are Plaintiff’s damages? Be specific.

8.

Does any party seek trial by jury? Or do the parties wish for a trial by a judge?

9.

What issues must be decided by a jury or judge when the case goes to trial?

10.

Have there been any settlement proposals? Would the parties like to discuss settling

the case at this time?
11.

Are there any other matters which any party desires to call to the attention of the

Court?
Status reports from all parties to this case shall be filed by Thursday, June 20, 2013. The
parties are advised that failure to file a status report by Thursday, June 30, 2013 as required by this
Order may result in sanctions being imposed on the offending party. Sanctions may include

prohibiting the offending party from raising certain issues or calling certain witnesses, or dismissal
of the action.

The foregoing is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
May 20, 2013

/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge