Aboah v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc.

District Court, D. Connecticut·Decided April 29, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-00763·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GWENDOLINE ABOAH, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated No. 3:20-cv-0763 (MPS)

Plaintiffs,

v.

FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a BRIGHTSTARE CARE OF FAIRFIELD & SOUTHBURY AND PETER R. MOORE,

Defendants.

SCHEDULING ORDER

The parties’ Rule 26(f) Report (ECF No. 26) is APPROVED, except as set forth in this order. Pre-certification discovery limited to liability, special defenses and class certification shall be completed by September 14, 2021. Any motion for conditional certification of a FLSA collective will be filed by Plaintiffs by August 10, 2021. Any motion for class certification under Rule 23 will be filed by Plaintiffs by September 15, 2021. Regardless of whether the collective and/or the class are certified and additional plaintiffs are joined, the parties shall, within 14 days of the Court’s ruling on any such motions (which will likely be a single ruling disposing of both motions if both motions are filed), meet, confer, and submit a Rule 26(f) report setting forth a proposed schedule for discovery deadlines. Once the Rule 26(f) report has been filed, the Court will issue a revised scheduling order. If no certification motions are filed, the parties shall file a joint status report on the docket no later than September 30, 2021, indicating whether the discovery deadlines proposed in the initial Rule 26(f) report, ECF No. 26, will be sufficient to complete discovery or whether the parties seek to adjust those deadlines. At that time, the Court will either issue a revised scheduling order or will schedule a telephonic status conference to discuss the needs of the case. Finally, the parties are responsible for following the appended instructions regarding (1) joint status reports, (2) discovery disputes, and (3) the joint trial memorandum, all of which the Court hereby incorporates as part of this Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J. Dated: Hartford, Connecticut April 29, 2021 I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR STATUS REPORTS

On or before the deadline assigned by the Scheduling Order, the parties shall file with the Clerk’s Office, with certification copies sent to all counsel of record, an original joint status report, stating the following: (a) The status of the case, describing the status of discovery and identifying any pending motions and any circumstances potentially interfering with the parties’ compliance with the scheduling order;

(b) Interest in referral for settlement purposes to a United States Magistrate Judge or to the District’s special masters program;

(c) Whether the parties will consent to a trial before a magistrate judge; and

(d) The estimated length of trial.

No status reports will be accepted via facsimile. II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

All discovery issues should be resolved in good faith by counsel in accordance with their obligations to the Court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District’s Local Rules. Before filing any motion relating to discovery, the parties are required to comply with the following requirements: 1. Counsel for parties to discovery disputes must jointly contact Judge Shea’s Chambers by telephone to notify the Court that a dispute exists and provide a brief oral description of the nature of the dispute. Except in extraordinary circumstances, Chambers staff will not entertain such a communication unless counsel for all parties to the discovery dispute are on the telephone when the call is made to Chambers.

2. Within three (3) days of counsel contacting Chambers to notify the Court of the existence of a dispute, each party must provide Chambers via e-mail with a written submission summarizing the nature of the dispute and briefly explaining its position. The written submission shall take the form of a letter and shall be no more than two pages in length. All such communications must be copied to opposing counsel and must include the certification discussed in paragraph 6 below.

3. If the dispute involves a written interrogatory, request for production, request for admission, deposition notice and/or subpoena (the “discovery request”), counsel for the party who served the discovery request at issue will, along with the written submission, provide Chambers via e-mail with a copy of the particular discovery request at issue and the opposing party’s written response to that particular request. Judge Shea does not need the entire discovery request and response but requires only the particular portions of the discovery request and response at issue.

4. Other than the written submission and any discovery requests and responses at issue, Judge Shea does not require, and does not want, counsel for the parties to provide him with any briefs, documents, deposition transcripts, correspondence or written argument regarding the discovery issue in dispute.

5. Following a review of the written submission and any discovery requests and responses at issue, the Court will determine whether additional steps, such as a telephonic conference with the Court or additional briefing, are necessary for the Court to resolve the discovery dispute. In some cases, the Court may determine that no additional input is needed and issue an order based only on the letters and relevant discovery requests and objections submitted by the parties. Any such order will reflect the input received from the parties and will allow the parties to docket the materials submitted if they wish to preserve the record on particular points. 6. Before contacting Chambers to notify the Court of a discovery dispute, counsel for parties to any discovery dispute are required by Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37(a) to have conferred with one another and to have made a good faith effort to eliminate or reduce the area of controversy. All discovery issues should be resolved in good faith by counsel in accordance with their obligations to the Court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District’s Local Rules. Judge Shea interprets the good faith conference obligation of the Federal Rules and Local Rules to require counsel to confer either face-to-face or by telephone; exchanges of correspondence are not sufficient in and of themselves to satisfy counsel’s good faith conference obligations. All written submissions describing the nature of the dispute submitted to the Court must include a written certification by each party that they have complied with their good faith conference obligations under the Federal Rules and Local Rules.

7. Before notifying the Court of a discovery dispute, counsel for all parties to a discovery dispute must also agree upon the issues that they intend to raise with Judge Shea and inform Chambers of those issues at the time of the notification. If the parties cannot in good faith agree upon the issues to be raised with Judge Shea, they shall so notify Chambers.

8. Should the Court schedule a telephonic conference to discuss the dispute with the parties, counsel should agree in advance on which party will be responsible for initiating the telephonic discovery conference. Counsel should not contact Judge Shea’s Chambers until counsel for all parties to the discovery dispute are on the telephone. Failure to participate in a scheduled telephonic discovery conference may result in the imposition of sanctions.

9.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aboah v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc., (D. Conn. 2021).

Aboah v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc. (Aboah v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)