Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 244-2 Filed 12/18/2006 Page1 013
EXHIBIT A

2



Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 244-2 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM )
NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPAT RICK, and ) CASE NUMBER:
MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., ) 3:03 CV 00644 (CFD)
I >
g Plaintiffs, )
>
v. )
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
>
Defendants, )
I
DAVID W. GWYNN and RAQUEL GWYNN, )
) CASE NUMBER:
Plaintiffs, ) 3:03 CV 1154 (CFD)
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) l
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
I
Defendants. ) December 18, 2006
S
DECLARATION OF DAVID S. SAIVIUELS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER
I, David S. Samuels, hereby declare the following: .
1. I am over the age of 18, and I make this Declaration under the penalty of perjury.
2. I make this Declaration pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P, 26(C).
3. I am an attorney and an Associate of the law firm of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge
LLP representing defendants, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. and AIG

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 244-2 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 3 of 3
Teclmical Services, Inc. rr/k/a AIG Domestic Claims Inc. (collectively "AIG" or "Defendants"), in the
above-captioned action.
4. The statements in this Declaration are based upon my personal knowledge.
5. On December 6, 2006, plaintiffs Bruce Charles Ryan, Russell William Newton, Robert
Fitzpatrick, and Merit Capital Associates, Inc. (collectively the “Ryan Plaintiffs") noticed the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of Defendants.
6. On December 8, 2006, plaintiffs David W. Gwynn and Raquel Gwynn (collectively the
“Gwyrm Plaintiffs") noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendants. i
7. Between the dates of December l5, 2006 and December 18, 2006, attorney Mark B.
Seiger and I have engaged in email exchanges with counsel for the Ryan Plaintiffs and counsel for the
Gwynn Plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs’ counsel") in an attempt to resolve the dispute concerning
certain topics of examination contained in Plaintiffs’ respective notices for the deposition of AIG.
Specifically, Defendants contend that certain topics in the notices of deposition are duplicative of prior
testimony.
8. Counsel for Defendants conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel in a good faith effort to resolve
by agreement Defendants’ concerns regarding the duplicative nature of the enumerated items of subject
1
matter without the intervention of the Court; however, the parties have been unable to reach such an
agreement.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this l8th day of December, 2006.
- 2 - HFDg,m2,g,,i,SA,,,UELS