Williams v. Hartford Police Dept. et al

Filing 63

RULING granting over objection 46 Motion for Extension of Time until December 1, 2015 to respond to the plaintiff's request for production; denying as moot 47 Motion For Requested Production of Documents and Request for Admissions; denying as moot 48 Motion Request for Production of Documents; denying 49 Motion to Correct Page Numbering re: 42 Amended Complaint; denying 51 Joint MOTION for Scheduling Order; and granting over objection 52 Motion for Extension of Time unti l November 11, 2015 to Respond to Requests for Production. An in-person case management conference will be held on November 2, 2015, at 10:00AM. A separate calendar will issue forthwith. Please see attached ruling for further details. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 10/7/2015. (Katz, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
CHARLES C. WILLIAMS
:
:
v.
:
:
HARTFORD POLICE DEPT.,
:
et al.
:
:
------------------------------x

Civil No. 3:15CV00933(AWT)

October 7, 2015

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS [Doc. ##46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52]
The plaintiff has filed two motions seeking discovery and a
motion to correct the page numbers in his amended complaint.
The defendants have filed two motions for extensions of time and
a motion for entry of a scheduling order.
Defendants’ Motions [Doc. ##46, 52]
The defendants seek an extension of time until December 1,
2015, to respond to the plaintiff’s September 2, 2015, discovery
requests. [Doc. #46]. The defendants further seek an extension
of time until November 11, 2015, to respond to the plaintiff’s
September 11, 2015, discovery requests [Doc. #52]. The plaintiff
objects to the requested extensions of time. These motions are
granted, over objection, as the extensions requested are
reasonable and the defendants have shown good cause. The
defendants shall respond to the requests by the dates specified
in the motions.

Plaintiff’s Motions [Doc. ##47, 48, 49]
The plaintiff has filed a discovery request with the court.
As the court previously instructed the plaintiff, discovery
requests are not to be filed with the court. See Doc. #45.

The

plaintiff’s discovery request [Doc. #48] is denied as moot.
The plaintiff also has filed a motion seeking to compel
responses to discovery requests. As the court has granted the
defendants an extension of time to respond, this motion [Doc.
#47] is denied as moot. The plaintiff is cautioned that if he
refiles this motion, or files any similar motion in the future,
he must comply with the requirements of Rule 37 of the Local
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to renumber the
pages of his amended complaint. The court cannot alter any
document filed with the court. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion
[Doc. #49] is denied.

The court does note, however, that the

information on page 33 of the amended complaint is properly
included in paragraph 75, which begins on page 42.
Motion for Amendment of Scheduling Order [Doc. #51]
Finally, the defendants have submitted a proposed
scheduling order which would extend all of the pre-trial
deadlines in this case and delay the filing of dispositive
2

motions until March 2017. In its Initial Review Order, the Court
ordered that all discovery in this case was to be completed on
or before January 31, 2016, and any dispositive motions should
be filed on or before March 1, 2016. The defendants have
provided no reason why they cannot comply with the current
scheduling order. Thus, the defendants’ motion [Doc. #51] is
denied.
An in-person conference shall be held on Monday, November
2, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5 of the United States
Courthouse at 141 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut. Should
any party wish to propose an amended scheduling order, the party
must file an appropriate motion on or before October 26, 2015,
showing good cause for the requests made. The parties should be
prepared to discuss the schedule for moving forward with this
case and to address all motions pending at the time of the
conference. The parties should also be prepared to discuss
whether a referral for settlement conference would be productive
in this case and, if so, when.
In summary, the defendants’ motions for extension of time
[Docs. ##46, 52] are GRANTED. The plaintiff’s request for
production of documents [Doc. #48] and the plaintiff’s motion to
compel [Doc. #47] are DENIED as moot. The plaintiff’s request to
3

correct page numbering [Doc. #49] is DENIED. The defendants’
proposed scheduling order [Doc. #51] is DENIED. The parties
shall comply with the current scheduling order until further
order of the Court.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 7th day of October, 2015 at New Haven,
Connecticut.
___/s/_______
___________
Sarah A. L. Merriam
United States Magistrate Judge

4