Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 211 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM )
NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and ) CASE NUMBER:
MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., ) 3:03 CV 00644 (CFD)
Plaintiffs, )
I
I
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
>
Defendants, )
)
DAVHD W. GWYNN and RAQUEL GWYNN, )
) CASE NUMBER:
Plaintiffs, ) 3:03 CV 1154 (CFD)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendants. ) SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 ORDER
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), defendants, National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA and AIG Technical Services, Inc. n/k/a AIG Domestic Claims Inc. ("AIG")
(collectively, "Defendants") respectfully obj ect to the Court’s electronic order issued by Judge
Magistrate Smith and dated September 8, 2006 (the “Order").
The Order provides as follows:
ORDER denying [207] Motion for Protective Order. The court finds that discovery
should continue while Judge Droney considers the pending motion for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment cannot be used as a tactical device aimed at indefinitely prolonging a
case. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on September 8, 2006. (Drake, C.)

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 211 Filed O9/21/2006 Page 2 of 4
As discussed in Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order and Memorandum of Law In
Support of Defendant ’s Motion For Protective Order dated and tiled on September 8, 2006,
Defendants respectfully submit that requiring discovery and depositions to continue, which are
irrelevant for adjudication of the dispositive motion for summary judgment now before the
Court, forces Defendants to expend time and expense unnecessarily.
Moreover, the depositions place an undue burden upon defendants, particularly when
they are not necessary for the adjudication of the summary judgment motion. Accordingly,
Defendants respectfully object to the Order and ask the Court to set it aside.
DEFENDANTS/COUNTERPLAINTIFFS
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.
and AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
Mark B. Seiger
Fed. Bar No. ct055 80
David S. Samuels
Fed. Bar No. ct 24460
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103-271 5
Tel: (860) 525-5065
Fax: (860) 527-4198
Email: mseiger@,eapd1aw.com
Email: [email protected]
John D. Hughes
Massachusetts BBO # 243660
I 11 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02199
Tel: (617) 951-3373
Fax: (617) 439-4170
Email: [email protected]
·· 2 · H.FD_I68l63_I/DSAMUELS


Case 3:03-cv-OO644-CFD Document 211 Filed O9/21/2006 Page 3 of 4
Donna M. Greenspan
Flo1·idaBarNo.: 059110
One North Clematis Street, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Tel: (561) 833-7700
Fax: (561) 655-8719
t Email: dg1·[email protected]
·· 3 · HFD_168163__1/DSAMUELS

Case 3:03-cv-OO644-CFD Document 211 Filed O9/21/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on September 21, 2006, the foregoing Defendants’ Objection To
September 8, 2006 Order was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept
electronic tiling. Notice of this tiling will be sent by email to all patties by operation of the
court’s electronic filing system or by mailto anyone unable to accept electronic filing as
indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this document through the
cou1t’s CM/ECF System.
gmk B. Sei ger fi
· 4 ·· HFD_l68l63__l/DSAMUELS