Foley v. Marlborough

• Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
• Decided: December 21, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01481
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JAMES FOLEY

Plaintiff,

v. No. 3:19-cv-01481 (VAB) TOWN OF MARLBOROUGH Defendant.

ORDER

While it is not the Court’s preference to burden counsel during the upcoming holidays, proper preparation for the upcoming trial, along with the extensions of time granted for the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum, necessitate the imposition of the following schedule, consistent with the Court’s “authority to manage [its] docket[]”, Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016), any responses to any motions in limine shall be due by December 26, 2022; any replies to any responses to any motions in limine shall be due by December 29, 2022; and a final pretrial conference shall be in person on January 5, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. See Id (“[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.”). At the final pretrial conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss any and all exhibits, including whether the admission of any exhibits have been stipulated to, or remain the subject of an objection, as well as the specific amount of time needed for and the expected order of any and all witnesses. If not already provided, by January 5th, each party also shall provide the Court with three sets of exhibit binders. The Court intends to conduct jury selection on January 9, 2023, and begin the trial immediately thereafter. At this time, the parties should be prepared to present evidence on at least January 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and the 13th of 2023. To the extent that the trial needs to extend beyond these dates, the Court will determine before trial whether the presentation of evidence will need to be limited by time, a decision to be informed by the evidence necessary to ensure a fair trial on the relevant issues. See Dietz, 136 S. Ct. at 1892; see also Hardy v. Town of Greenwich, 629 F. Supp. 2d 192, 202 (D. Conn. 2009) (limiting the amount of time for examination and cross- examination of witnesses). To the extent that there are conflicting court obligations affecting the trial days provided above, the relevant counsel shall provide the Court with the pertinent docket information for further inquiry by the Court, which may include discussions with the presiding

judge(s) of any such matters. SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 21st day of December, 2022.

/s/ Victor A. Bolden VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE