Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 271-2 Filed 01/24/2007 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM )
NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and MERIT ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ) 3:03 CV 00644 (CFD)
Plaintiffs, )
> i
I
VS. )
> A
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) é
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., ) j
Defendants ) _
) S
DAVID W. GW Y NN and RAQUEL GW Y N N ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiffs, ) 3:03 CV 01154 (CFD)
) .
)
vs. )
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) J
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and ) P
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
Defendants ) L
) JANUARY 24, 2007
THE GWYNN PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO
JANUARY 16, 2007 ORDER
Plaintiffs, David and Raquel Gwynn ("the Gwynn Plaintiffs") respectfully submit the
following response and objection to Defendants’ Objection To J anugy 16, 2007 Order, tiled on
January 22, 2007 ("defendants’ motion").
The Gwynn Plaintiffs assert the following in support of their Response and Objection to
defendants’ motion:

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 271-2 Filed O1/24/2007 Page 2 of 4
l. On December l8, 2006, defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order [244]
concerning certain depositions that had been noticed by the Gwynn plaintiffs, and co-plaintiffs
("the Ryan plaintiffs") of defendants’ corporate representative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6).
2. Judge Smith denied defendants’ motion for protective order by way of an electronic
order entered on January 16. 2007 [258].
3. The Gwynn plaintiffs assert that the cotu·t’s order denying defendants’ motion for f
protective order was correctly decided, and fully supported by the facts of this case and
controlling law.
4. However, defendants’ motion, which they styled an "Obj ection," was filed on January
22, 2007. Defendants now ask the Court to reverse its well-reasoned opinion denying their
motion for protective order and "set it aside." Defendants present no new facts, nor any
additional law, to justify this relief
5. Defendants’ motion should be denied by this court without any hesitation.
6. While defendants chose to style their pleading an "Obj ection," it is in reality a motion
for reconsideration. As such, defendants have completely ignored the requirements of Local
Rule 7 ( c), which directs that motions for reconsideration "shall be accompanied by a
memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes
the Court overlooked in the initial decision or order."

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 271 -2 Filed O1/24/2007 Page 3 of 4
7. Here, of course, defendants have not presented any matters or controlling decisions
which it believes the Court has overlooked. Nor can they. The reality is that there is no such
information to present.
8. The Gwyim plaintiffs respectfully refer the Court to the Ryan Plaintiffs’ Memorandum
in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel [243]. In that Memorandum, counsel to the
Ryan plaintiffs sets forth the defendants’ course of conduct in stalling discovery in this case, to
plaintiffs’ detriment.
9. Defendants’ motion is simply another effort on defendants’ part to delay or deny
discovery to plaintiffs. It is completely without merit, and should be denied.
PLAINTIFFS, DAVID GWYNN and
RAQUEL GWYNN S

By `
Ma ` DiNata1e (ct 12449)
Silver Golub & Teitell, LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06904
(203) 325-4491
(203) 325-3769 (Fax)
[email protected]

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 271 -2 Filed O1/24/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. Mail, postage
prepaid, on this 24"‘ day of January, 2007, to:
Mark B. Seiger, Esq.
Charles F. Gfeller, Esq.
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103
Peter M. Nolin, Esq.
Stephanie McLaughlin, Esq.
Sandak Hermessey & Greco LLP 7
707 Summer Street I
Stamford, CT 06905
MA1uo DiNATALE