Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 104-5 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 1 of 1

From: Mario DiNatale- Silver Golub & Teitell [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:55 PM
To: James Hawkins
Cc: [email protected]; William Tong; Sarah Reardon- Silver Golub & Teitell
Subject: RE: Gwynn v. National Union
Jim-
I don’t normally respond to emails at night while at home, but since I have no idea when you
plan to leave town, I will share with you my thoughts.
Your proposal to delay discovery is unacceptable, and unworkable. How is it that you plan
to let the Ryan plaintiffs conduct discovery as noticed, but not the Gwynn plaintiffs?
I specifically agreed to postpone Conlin's deposition subject to your explicit agreement to
l conduct this deposition within two weeks of August 3, which I then moved further back to
August 25, I believe, for the convenience of all. Are you now seeking to renege on this
agreement?
Nor will I agree to change the locale of the depositions to New York City in exchange for
your agreement for 30 days' time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
If this means that I have to now seek leave of the court to file my proposed amended
complaint, I will do so. In that event, I will dismiss GFS from the federal case and pursue
my remedies for that party in state court. If your clients are subject to double exposure as a
result, it will be their fault for not agreeing to my reasonable proposal. You may then feel
Hee to do whatever you wish with your notion that GFS is somehow an indispensable party.
I am also perplexed that you now state that it is your "intention" to serve an amended
answer, special defenses and counterclaims by Friday, "subject to [your] clients' approval."
I agreed to postpone Conlin's deposition on the express condition that such a pleading be
served by Friday, at least in the Ryan matter. I would expect that your clients authorize you
to live up to this commitment.
Mario