Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 272

Filed 01/29/2007

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, DAVID W. GWYNN and RAQUEL GWYNN, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NUMBER: 3:03 CV 00644 (CFD)

CASE NUMBER: 3:03 CV 1154 (CFD)

JANUARY 29, 2007

DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO THE GWYNN PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO JANUARY 16, 2007 ORDER Defendants, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA and AIG Technical Services, Inc. n/k/a AIG Domestic Claims Inc. (collectively, "AIG"), respectfully submit this reply to The Gwynn Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Objection To January 16, 2007 Order ("the Gwynn Plaintiffs' Reply"). This reply is necessary to correct the Gwynn Plaintiffs' mischaracterization of Defendants' Objection To January 16, 2007 Order filed on January 22, 2007 ("Objection"). In support hereof, AIG asserts the following:

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 272

Filed 01/29/2007

Page 2 of 5

1.

On December 18, 2006, AIG filed a Motion For a Protective Order with respect to

certain repetitive topics that Plaintiffs noticed for the continued deposition of Defendants' corporate representative ("Motion"). The basis of the Motion was that the topics were addressed previously on multiple occasions and Plaintiffs' repeated attempts to address the topics served no purpose except to harass and cause undue burden and expense on AIG. 2. Magistrate Judge Smith denied the Motion on January 16, 2007 by way of an

electronic order. 3. Pursuant to and as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), AIG filed its objection to the

January 16, 2007 order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), in pertinent part, specifically states the following: Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in a magistrate judge's order to which objection was not timely made. The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. AIG filed its Objection on January 22, 2007- six days after the order was issued. 4. Despite the fact that AIG appropriately filed its Objection, the Gwynn Plaintiffs

blatantly attempted to mischaracterize the Objection as a motion for reconsideration. See the Gwynn Plaintiffs' Reply, ¶ 6. More importantly, without any justification whatsoever, the Gwynn Plaintiffs wrongly allege that AIG has "completely ignored the requirements" of the local rules. Id. 5. AIG filed its objection to preserve its rights, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

The Gwynn Plaintiffs' assertion that AIG was required to file a "memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court overlooked" has -2HFD_173715_1/DSAMUELS

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 272

Filed 01/29/2007

Page 3 of 5

no basis in law. See the Gwynn Plaintiffs' Reply, ¶ 6. Moreover, the Gwynn Plaintiffs' allegation that "Defendants' motion is simply another effort on defendants' part to delay or deny discovery to plaintiffs" is wholly without merit and merely designed to prejudice AIG before this Court. See the Gwynn Plaintiffs' Reply, ¶ 9. The record in this matter clearly reflects the extensive discovery that has been taken by Plaintiffs to date. It is inconceivable that despite the fact that AIG has repeatedly produced its corporate representative and Plaintiffs have repeatedly addressed the same topics, Plaintiffs are, nevertheless, permitted to harass and burden AIG by inquiring into the same topics once again.

-3-

HFD_173715_1/DSAMUELS

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 272

Filed 01/29/2007

Page 4 of 5

DEFENDANTS/COUNTERPLAINTIFFS NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. and AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ` By: /s/ David S. Samuels Mark B. Seiger Fed. Bar No. ct05580 David S. Samuels Fed. Bar No. ct 24460 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP 90 State House Square Hartford, CT 06103-2715 Tel: (860) 525-5065 Fax: (860) 527-4198 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] John D. Hughes Massachusetts BBO # 243660 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP 111 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02199 Tel: (617) 951-3373 Fax: (617) 439-4170 Email: [email protected] Donna M. Greenspan Florida Bar No.: 059110 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP One North Clematis Street, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 833-7700 Fax: (561) 655-8719 Email: [email protected]

-4-

HFD_173715_1/DSAMUELS

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 272

Filed 01/29/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on January 29, 2007, the foregoing, DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO THE GWYNN PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO JANUARY 16, 2007 ORDER, was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this document through the court's CM/ECF System.

/s/ David S. Samuels David S. Samuels

-5-

HFD_173715_1/DSAMUELS