Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

°°'S°"'°5 'GEQE 3:6*3*tcE/J0dB4*4—C*FD*¤¤ Document 112-5 Filed O9/26/2005T-¤?Pageuu‘2ADia2 F-att
FINN Dixon at HEm.tN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE
STAMFORD, conuecrncur oesot-zsas
TELEPI-IGNE (203) 32!»—B¢0O
FACSIMILE l2D3) 348-5777
Jmvnss R. HAWKINS, ll. mnecr mnt: (203) 325-5042
INTERNET1 JHAwi September 6, 2005
Vin Facsimilie
Mario DiNatale, Esq.
Silver, Golub & Teitell LLP
184 Atlantic Street
P.O. Box 386
Stamford, CT 06904
Re: Gwynn v- National Union
Ryan v. National Union
Dear Mario;
This is to follow-up to part of our telephone conversation of last Wednesday.
The deposition of Liz Waeik has been scheduled for some time to occur on the mutually
agreed upon date of September 7. On Tuesday August 30, I received a renotice of Ms. Wacil<’s
deposition that included for the first time a document request. AI the outset of the telephone call,
aher we agreed that all comments were off the record, I requested a postponement of Ms.
Wacik’s deposition in light of the fact that the document request was received just before a long
holiday weekend and my principal client contacts were away from the office. After considerable
discussion that request was declined- I then advised that under the Rules, speeiiically Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(b)(5) and 34, my clients were entitled 30 days to respond to a request for documents
attached to a notice of deposition and accordingly, I was advising you that they would exercise
that right and would decline to respond to the document request on or prior to September 7 and
would decline to make Ms- Wacik available for her deposition until it had responded to your
document request in accordance with the Rules.
There was discussion about your withdrawing your clients’ document request. I advised
you that I would not produce Ms. Wacik for her deposition on Wednesday September 7 if your
clients reserved their right to take Ms. Wacik deposition again following a subsequent request for
documents. Both you and Peter Nolin declined to agree not to renotice Ms. Wacik’s deposition.
IDOISALIQ; 1; 00All-3l
Received Sap-U6—ZUUE 12:39nm From- Tu-SANDAK HENNESSEY & G Pass UUZ

us-sep-ue télme 3:®®¤eM+@O6» .tV121‘10 l.J1l\l§1I:l..lB, nsq.
September 6, 2005 `.- -
Page 2
Accordingly, this is to advise you the my clients have decided to exercise their rights
under Rules 30(la) (5) and 34, ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. My clients will respond
to your document request dated August 30, 2005 within 30 days and will thereafter make Ms.
Weeik available for her deposition at a mutually agreeable time and place.
V¤ yyryowsa /
/ / °/V _ -
/ runes R. Hawkins
1
cc: Peter M. Nolin, Esq.
(00154612; x; 0040-31
Received Sep-UB-ZDD5 12:39pm From- T0-SANDAK HENNESSEY En E Paue DDB