COMMONWEALTH OF MAFFACHUFETTF

=
RE: PUBLIC HEARING =
=
TUFTS CAPITAL PROJECT =
======================================

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR’S MOTION

The Applicant values the participation of community members and Intervenors in this

proceeding, as well as their environmental stewardship. This response is submitted not in

opposition to their involvement, but in the interest of preserving a fair and efficient process for

all parties, consistent with the applicable rules.

The Applicant, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 66-1, 66-2, and 66-3, and with

reference to Local Rule 7(b)(2)–(3) of the United States District Court for the District of

Connecticut, respectfully submit this response in opposition to Intervenors’ Motion for Extension

of Time to Submit Interrogatories. While the Applicant remains committed to a fair and

transparent process, the Applicant is concerned that the requested extension may affect the

efficiency and scheduling of the hearing proceedings. As explained below, the motion does not

appear to meet the procedural standards for good cause, and the Applicant was not consulted

prior to its filing, as required under applicable rules.

INTRODUCTION

16. On April 1, 2025, the Chief Hearing Executors provided a Proposed Procedural Schedule

(see “01 Procedures Memo 2025”) to interested parties regarding public hearings

scheduled for April 15, 2025, and April 22, 2025.

9, 2025, at 11:59 PM.

18. An extension was given for Interrogatory submissions until April 10, 2025 at 12:00 PM.

19. On April 10, 2025, at 11:43 AM, Intervenors submitted correspondence requesting a

Motion for Extension of Time regarding the Interrogatories.

The Applicant recognizes that participation in an expedited proceeding can be

challenging and that community groups may face resource constraints. However, Interrogatories

are time-sensitive by nature, and the resulting delay affects all parties' ability to prepare and

respond.

RESPONSE TO EXTENSION OF TIME

20. As a professional courtesy, the Applicant does not raise procedural objections to the

format of the Intervenors’ request and is treating it as a formal motion submitted in good

faith under Practice Book §§ 66-1 through 66-3.

21. However, Applicants must and do object to Intervenors’ justification for their requested

extension.

22. Intervenors state that waiting for outside counsel justifies a second extension. However,

they do not explain how the first extension was insufficient to obtaining outside counsel

before the new deadline.

23. Pursuant to United States District Court, District of Connecticut Local Rules, Rule

7(b)(2), movants of an Extension of Time must show good cause.

24. The good cause standard requires a particularized showing that the time limitation in

question cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

extension.
25. Intervenors’ purported rationale does not provide a particularized showing that the time

limitation cannot be met.

26. Pursuant to United States District Court, District of Connecticut Local Rules, Rule

7(b)(3), motions for extensions of time shall include a statement of the movant that the

movant has inquired of all non-moving parties and there is agreement or objection to the

motion. Or, despite diligent effort, including making the inquiry in sufficient time to

afford non-movant a reasonable opportunity to respond, the movant cannot ascertain the

position(s) of the non-movant(s).

27. The Intervenors fulfilled neither of these requirements; they did not include a statement

that they had inquired all non-moving parties and indicated an agreement or objection to

the motion, nor did they indicate an inability to reach nonmoving parties despite diligent

effort.

FURTHER JUSTIFICATION FOR OBJECTION

28. Section 13-14 of the Connecticut Practice Book provides that courts may preclude

evidence, testimony, or arguments if a party fails to comply with discovery obligations or

deadlines without good cause, as long as such failure is not harmless.

29. The late submission of Interrogatories is harmful because it disrupts the hearing schedule

and prevents the Applicant from preparing targeted responses, identifying rebuttal

evidence, filing appropriate motions in limine, and conducting timely follow-up

discovery. This impairs the Applicant’s ability to address potential factual or expert

claims in a timely and procedurally fair manner, contrary to the principles of

administrative due process recognized in Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) and

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).

central role in the resolution of contested issues, as it does in this proceeding.

31. Tufts has met all Interrogatory deadlines in good faith. Allowing the Intervenors to file

late gives them a procedural advantage, contrary to the principle of procedural parity.

32. Administrative hearings must follow basic due process, including the right to confront

evidence meaningfully (see 288 Conn. 790, 819 (2008)). Late Interrogatories deny that

opportunity and risk a procedurally flawed outcome (see 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).

The Applicant appreciates Intervenors participation in these proceedings. However, the

deadline for Interrogatories holds particular weight in a hearing on an expedited timeline such as

this one. Given the technical nature of the subject matter and the limited time available for

preparation, the failure to meet this specific deadline meaningfully impacts the Applicant’s

ability to evaluate, prepare for, and respond to the Intervenors’ claims. Our objection is focused

solely on this missed deadline, which directly affects the fairness and efficiency of the hearing

schedule.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Applicants respectfully object to any further extension of

time for Intervenors to serve Interrogatories. The delay impairs our ability to prepare timely

responses, conduct follow-up discovery, and fairly respond to factual or expert claims. We

therefore request that the Hearing Examiner deny the extension or, in the alternative, limit the

scope of any late Interrogatories and preclude related evidence not supported by timely

discovery, consistent with Practice Book §§ 13-4 and 13-14 and principles of due process.
 Respectfully submitted,
Site Development Project Team Counsel
s/ *Rebecca Zajac, Esq.*
s/ *Isaac Dame, Esq.*
s/ *Greta Larget, Esq.*
s/ *Paulina Casasola Mena, Esq.*
s/ *Emily Chen, Esq.*
s/ *Ryan Kadet, Esq.*
s/ *Elizabeth McLaughlin, Esq.*
s/ *Anna LaCombe, Esq.*