Smith v. Greater New Haven Transit District et al

Filing 22

ORDER re: the parties Rule 26(f) report. See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/14/13.(Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MAURICE W. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREATER NEW HAVEN TRANSIT,
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.

3:13CV502(RNC)

ORDER
On October 23, 2013, the defendants filed their version of the
Report of Parties' Planning Conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 26(f) report").
#19.)
case

(Doc.

According to defendants, the plaintiff failed to initiate a
planning

conference,

as

required

by

Local

Civil

Rule

26(f)(1)("The conference shall be initiated by the plaintiff and
may be conducted by telephone.") The defendants further state that
the plaintiff also failed to cooperate with defense counsel's
efforts to hold a planning conference and to prepare the required
report.

As a result, the defendants filed the instant proposed

report without the plaintiff's input or participation.
The Rule 26(f) report is a critical filing in the case.

The

pro se plaintiff and defense counsel are required to confer with
each other at some length in order to prepare a thorough Rule 26(f)
Report. The report should contain the parties' proposed date for
the completion of discovery.

All other dates in the scheduling

order are based on the discovery deadline.

The plaintiff is advised that pro se parties are not excused
from abiding by the rules of civil procedure.
A scheduling order will issue separately.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 14th day of November,
2013.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

2