Free Motion to Stay - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 93-2 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM )
NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and MERIT ) CASE NUMBER:
CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., ) 3:03 CV 00644 (CFD)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
DAVID W. GWYNN, RAQUEL GWYNN AND )
GWYNN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. ) CASE NUMBER:
) 3:03 CV 1154 (CFD)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., ) August 4, 2005
)
Defendants. )
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM M. TONG
STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
) ss: Stamford
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD )
WILLIAM M. TONG, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am an attorney with the firm of Firm Dixon & Herling LLP, counsel for
Defendants National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. and AIG Technical
Services, Inc. (collectively, "National Union") in the above captioned matter. I am a member of
{00148831; 1; 0040·3}

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 93-2 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 2 of 3
the bar of this court. I make this affidavit based upon my personal knowledge and pursuant to D.
CONN. L. CIV. R. 37(a)(2). The purpose of this affidavit is to describe the good faith efforts
made to resolve National Union’s discovery objections with opposing counsel prior to filing
National Union’s Motion to Postpone Discovery and Set Location of Depositions.
2. National Union specifically objected to the Ryan Plaintiffs’ Re-notices of
Deposition, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, on the grounds that the re-
notices sought the deposition at a place other than a location at or near National Union’s
principal place of business and were not in compliance with FED. R. CIV. P. 30.
3. National Union specifically objected to the Gwynn Plaintiffs’ Re-notices of
Deposition, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits C through E, on the ground that the
court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Gwynn Plaintiffs’ action under 28 U.S.C.
§l332. National Union further objected to these re-notices because the Gwynn Plaintiffs sought
the deposition at a place other than a location at or near National Union’s principal place of
business, after agreeing to hold the deposition of Brian T. Conlin in New York City.
4. The Ryan Plaintiffs have filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’
Objection to the Ryan Plaintiffs’ Renotice of Deposition, dated July 28, 2005. They claim their
Renotices are proper in form under FED. R. CIV. P. 30, National Union’s objections are untimely,
and that Connecticut is the proper location for the depositions of National Union’s ciurent or
former officers and employees.
5. The Gwynn Plaintiffs have filed a Memorandum in Support of Response to
National Union’s Objections to Re-notices of Depositions, dated July 27, 2005. They claim that
Connecticut is the proper location for the depositions of National Union’s current or former
officers and employees.
{00148831; 1; 0040·3}

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 93-2 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 3 of 3
6. On behalf of National Union, my colleague, James Hawkins, and I have engaged
in a series of communications by telephone and email with Peter Nolin, Esq., counsel for the
Plaintiffs Bruce Charles Ryan, Russell William Newtown, Robert Fitzpatrick, and Merit Capital
Associates, Inc., and Mario DiNatale, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs David W. Gwynn, Raquel
Gwynn, and Gwynn Financial Services, Inc., to address National Union’s objections to
Plaintiffs’ re-notices of depositions in a good faith effort to resolve the issues by agreement
without the intervention of the Court. These communications included a telephone conversation
between Peter Nolin and me on July 28, 2005, and telephone and email communications between
James Hawkins, Peter Nolin and Mario DiNatale which continued through yesterday, August 3,
2005. We were unable to reach an agreement concerning National Union’s objections to
Plaintiffs’ attempts to renotice depositions.
William M. Tong?
SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this
the 2 gy of August, 2005.
'/ P
Notary Public
JUDITH P. PEPLER
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIFIES FEB. 28, 2010
{00148881; 1; 0I)40·3}