Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
BBB Attorneys
-
Utility | Filed: May 28, 2024 | Entered: May 28, 2024 Scricca et al v. Boppy Company, LLC et al
Personal Inj. Prod. Liability | Connecticut
Calendar Entry - Motion Hearing
NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. RESET FROM 5/29/24 --- Telephonic Motion Hearing re: ECF 126 and ECF 127 set for 6/11/2024 at 03:00 PM before Judge Thomas O. Farrish. Counsel should be prepared to report whether they have reached any agreements on any of the discovery requests at issue in the two motions. Please call in to the Court's conference call line at 1-888-557-8511 and enter the pass code of 4478772# when prompted. (Velez, F)
-
Order | Filed: May 28, 2024 | Entered: May 28, 2024 Scricca et al v. Boppy Company, LLC et al
Personal Inj. Prod. Liability | Connecticut
Order
ORDER continuing the telephonic motion hearing scheduled for May 29, 2024. Attorney Krayeske informed Judge Farrish's law clerk that the parties met and conferred and agreed to continue the hearing to Tuesday, June 11, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. The hearing is accordingly continued to that date and time. A separate calendar entry will issue. So ordered.
Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 5/28/24.(Velez, F) -
Order | Filed: May 24, 2024 | Entered: May 24, 2024 Scricca et al v. Boppy Company, LLC et al
Personal Inj. Prod. Liability | Connecticut
Order
ORDER re: Continued Hearing on Discovery Motions. Judge Farrish is informed that Attorney Krayeske called chambers this afternoon to explain that he had a conflict on May 29, the date on which the continued hearing is currently scheduled. The Court can offer the following replacement dates and times: Friday, June 7, at 10:00, 11:00 or 12:00; Monday, June 10, at 3:00; Tuesday, June 11, at 3:00. Counsel are directed to meet and confer and choose a date/time that works for both of them, and to inform Judge Farrish's law clerk at 860-240-3605.
Attorney Krayeske is respectfully advised that, when he needs scheduling relief, the best practice is to either (a) file a motion on the docket or (b) call chambers with opposing counsel on the line. While ex parte calls to chambers are not necessarily improper when they are strictly limited to matters of scheduling and administration, see Omari v. Ras Al Khaimah Free Trade Zone Auth., No. 16-cv-3895 (NRB), 2017 WL 2271536, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2017), bringing opposing counsel onto the call is always the wisest choice, because (a) doing so avoids disputes over whether the call was indeed strictly limited to matters of scheduling and administration; and (b) the Court will usually not grant scheduling relief without knowing the other party's position.
Finally, counsel are respectfully directed to continue meeting and conferring in an effort to resolve as many of the issues in ECF Nos. 126 and 127 as they can. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 5/24/2024.(Farrish, Thomas)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login