ABRAHAM RIBICOFF FEDERAL BUILDING United States Courthouse 450 Main Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103
To safeguard the rule against ex parte communications, and to further the public’s interest in pending court proceedings, Judge Williams prefers parties and their counsel to communicate case-related inquiries through the docket, rather than through phone calls or emails to chambers, regardless of the ministerial nature of the inquiry.
Judge Williams finds the filing of Rule 26(f) Reports to be critical to the fair and efficient administration of justice. The court appreciates the parties’ diligence in producing a Rule 26(f) Report that clearly outlines the main issues in a case and that identifies any potential discovery disputes. This worthwhile combined effort also allows the parties to carefully consider: the viability of factual and legal justifications cited in support of any claim or defense; the potential narrowing of the claims; and the advantages of settling a matter without further expenditure of time and money toward litigation that otherwise could result in a far worse outcome.
Judge Williams independently determines whether a scheduling conference with the court is necessary, but he will consider whether the parties have requested a scheduling conference in their Rule 26(f) Report.
Judge Williams generally will defer to reasonable and efficient deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions proposed by the parties in the Rule 26(f) Report, and will use them as a reference in issuing the initial scheduling order. However, Judge Williams expects that the parties will suggest closing discovery between six to nine months from the date of the filing of the Rule 26(f) Report. If the parties believe that more than nine months is required to complete discovery, then they should explain why additional time is needed. Absent an explanation from the parties on why more than nine months is needed, Judge Williams may enter an order to complete discovery at the end of nine months even if the parties have requested additional time. Once a scheduling order is entered, Judge Williams expects parties to follow the schedule and will modify it only upon a showing of good cause.
Unless otherwise ordered, within three (3) business days after a document is filed electronically, counsel must provide chambers with two (2) paper copies of any e-filed documents in excess of twenty (20) pages, including all accompanying exhibits and attachments. Courtesy copies should be delivered to the Clerk’s office to the attention of the Honorable Judge Omar A. Williams.
Courtesy copies should be printed double-sided when possible. All courtesy copies must be properly ordered and tabbed. Any courtesy copy that cannot be securely stapled must be placed in a three-ring binder.
All courtesy copies should be printed from the docket and should bear the ECF header of the court’s electronic filing system.
Copies of brief, routine procedural motions should not be provided to chambers unless requested.
Judge Williams does not require a pre-filing conference before a dispositive motion is filed.
Judge Williams refers cases for settlement conferences to a United States Magistrate Judge, and will do so prior to allowing the case to proceed to trial. From the outset of a case, counsel should consider and discuss whether great litigation expense might be saved by means of an early settlement conference. If the parties mutually agree that a settlement conference might be productive, they simply may call the Courtroom Deputy and request a referral for a settlement conference; no formal motion is necessary.
The dedication and expertise of our magistrate judges have earned great appreciation and respect from this court. Parties are expected to sufficiently prepare for settlement conferences in order to ensure a meaningful and productive attempt at resolution without costly and time-consuming litigation.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), all requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be electronically filed and state (1) the original date, (2) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extension, (3) whether these previous requests were granted or denied, and (4) whether the adversary consents. If the opposing party does not consent to the requested extension, the party requesting such extension shall state the reasons given by its adversary in objecting to an extension of time.
Judge Williams determines whether to hear oral argument on a case-by-case basis, and as his schedule permits. Judge Williams may rule from the bench, and a transcript of any oral ruling may be obtained by the parties from the court reporter. The quality of the parties’ briefing affects the court’s ability to rule promptly.
The development of junior lawyers undoubtedly has been impacted by the pandemic, and their opportunity to contribute at oral argument already had been limited. Accordingly, the court welcomes oral advocacy from prepared junior members of legal teams. To the extent that it encourages such participation, the court will consider supplemental argument from senior counsel (where necessary). Ultimately, it is of course the decision of counsel to determine who will provide oral argument on behalf of its client.
Judge Williams prefers to refer discovery disputes to a magistrate judge.
Please note that in order for Judge Williams to consider any motion to withdraw a lawyer’s appearance, the court will require proof of actual notice to the affected client, in accordance with Local Rule 7(e).
