Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
William P. Mara, Jr. et al. v. Karen Otto
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REARGUE (# 160)
Upon further review of the file in response to the Motion to Reargue the court has discovered that simultaneously with the filing of the Motion For Authorization To Obtain Protected Health Information the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Modify Scheduling Order in which they sought additional time to complete discovery. On September 28, 2009 the court (Adams, J.), denied the Motion To Modify. Since the Motion For Authorization seeks document discovery beyond the September 11, 2009 date agreed to by the parties and ordered by the court for the completion of document discovery, this court's order of October 5, 2009 was a nullity. Accordingly, the Motion To Reargue is granted and the Motion For Authorization (# 146) is now denied.
Mottolese, J.T.R.
Mottolese, A. William, J.T.R.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: FSTCV065001188S
Decided: November 24, 2009
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)