Williams v. Connecticut Technical High School System Foundation, Inc. et al
SUPPLEMENTAL RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 2/26/2013.(Rodko, B.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HOWELL CHENEY TECHNICAL
HIGH SCHOOL ET AL.
3:12 CV 43 (MPS)
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2013
SUPPLEMENTAL RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Familiarity is presumed with this Magistrate Judge's Amended Ruling on Motion to
Compel, filed November 13, 2012 (Dkt. #52)[“November 2012 Ruling”], and Ruling on
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, filed February 21, 2013 (Dkt. #68)["February 2013
Ruling"]. The February 2013 Ruling concerned defendant's request for a protective order to
limit plaintiff’s inquiries of CTHS employees (Principal Robert Sartoris, Vice Principal Patricia
Feeney, and instructor Janet D’Onofrio) at their depositions to the following three areas,
consistent with the November 2012 Ruling: (1) racial slurs or incidents including former
CTHS students Kyle Miller and Michael Miller directed towards plaintiff; (2) racial slurs or
incidents involving Kyle Miller and Michael Miller directed towards other CTHS students from
January 2008 to February 2009; and (3) the investigation into any other incidents of racial
slurs directed towards plaintiff from March 2008 through January 14, 2009. (Dkt. #60, at
1; Brief at 1-2, 3-6). The February 2013 Ruling granted plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
to the limited extent that there was any discovery permitted in the November 2012 Ruling
that goes beyond the three items listed by defendants.
Both counsel orally have requested a clarification as to which topics can be addressed
at these depositions beyond the three items listed by defendants. While counsel are correct
that the overwhelming majority of the discussion in the November 2012 Ruling was centered
around these three issues (see November 2012 Ruling at 2-5, 6, discussing Interrogatories
Nos. 6-16, & 21, and Requests for Production Nos. 4-5, 8-14, 17), it is theoretically possible
that plaintiff's counsel could inquire as to Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production No.
2, for which compliance also was ordered. (November 2012 Ruling at 2, 5-6). As the Court
has not had access to defendant's responses, it did not want to preclude plaintiff's counsel
from asking about this discovery if the inquiry would be relevant to the depositions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within
fourteen calendar days after service of same); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; Rule
72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut; Small v. Secretary, H&HS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure
to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling may preclude
further appeal to Second Circuit); Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 603-05 (2d
Cir. 2008)(failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge’s discovery ruling will preclude
further appeal to Second Circuit).
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 26th day of February, 2013.
/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?