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

F O A .03-cv-OOGSEFIBA Document 32-2 Filed O3/05/2004 Page 1 of 2 V
fi
\
Q) .
l
, I
. J; b` ·
»\ 5 \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
bf ‘;* E N DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
.2 2 is `·
E " ei \a
g—¤ T “’ JOSEPH LIPINSKI, g 2 _
Plaintiff, / {
Q U 61 § L % VI/I
iD ¤’ _` ig 1) v. : CASE NO. 3:O0CV00379 (CFD) J
L _ ` .
§ "Q \ .
,_ *-13 Q °~ CREDIT BUREAU OF CONNECTICUT, :
§ Vt < INC. and ASSOCIATES CAPITAL BANK,
}`· 3 { *3 ` Defendants. NOVEMBER 8, 2000 " '
2* \ ` E` _ L';.
2 4,- - · \§ .
g¢ vs . -
o 2) 3* `i A
`Q ` g .., DEFENDANT, ASSOCIATES CAPITAL BANK’S i ‘
5 rl e3 \’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND `
Q 2 Q ii B . MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF ·
*5 r I [-~
.5 ¥ Q ’ 1. INTRODUCTION
V .
3 my
t- .
2 _h Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), Defendant, Associates Capital Bank ("Associates"),
; EDI" hereby moves that this Court enter a protective order in the above-referenced action and require
; `
» P .. i
_ L TQ § that Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Associates take place at its principal place of
3 business in Salt Lake City, Utah. rather than New Haven, Connecticut. In support of this
* + i ; ,
- ( .
5- { motion, Associates submits the following memorandum of law}
r '~ +, r . ‘$
` 5 Associates seeks a protective order to avoid the annoyance, oppression, and undue 0
ij . .,5 g
,5 2 6 __ burden connected with the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition which Plaintiff seeks to take of a ,
.*~ + *5 a I
iop 5 designated representative of Associates at the offices of Plaintiff’s counsel in New Haven, .
A < Q
ng, E J; Connecticut. Plaintiff’s attempt to force an out-of-state, corporate defendant to appear for a _i
E ` jb *-1) i P`} ··. _ ;
Q 3 i deposition in Connecticutfdefies well—settled precedent within this and other Circuits dictating ` i
S ' Q • ` l` <
2 "___ W ln . ,
. &> Z H`- _ 'T! rs
`J O 72 J ' FilEd~eo@ gjglntly with this motion is the undersigned’s Local Rule 9(d)(2)
A Affidavit. _
E SA¤tA & HARTLEY, LLC • Arronwavs AT i.Aw ,·
190 TRuMaut.L STREET • Surrs 202 · HARrron¤, CT 06tO3-2205 • (860) 541-2077 • FAx (860) 7t3—B9A4

f A 5 5 P y , 4. ,· - 1, _ _. if .__q A., A I ,A`i Q . ¢,.V_ A_, . _ ... _ _ _ ,
Q se 3:03-cv—00636-J * ocument 3 -2 ne 3 0 2004 Page 2 of 2 *
AG •-· h f . Q! \J
~ 2 I E *\ UJ A
E} gy §‘I ` •_ (___ ,_ ,,_
'/ ¤__ ~ [
g/gig 5 :>Y.
V. »~ q-[ 6 ‘ \__ '_ { A _ ...
§*£z.\;x¤ sex I =» N
vi-gd \)£’. » nsw I
'GLZ; pg U; fj » " ?i.>‘¥? Q; {,—;~° · gg w UNITED STATES DISTRIC'I§&-COURT ‘’E“ M.
., T s\ . I
a,&§.m
. gf? · DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
§-E HH
gzg r MARY J. GAETANO, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1.) Af
Plaintiff, : N—89-220 (TFGD) \_)-
Qgegia W- R ? 5
‘*"· WW i :
§_q>§‘ gg PAYCO OF WISCONSIN, INC. : JANUARY 31, 1990 A
Defendant :
§.Tg?§ ¤¤ Q-• MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT or
SIE Eqgg MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDBQ
JJ S · ..
.;` `. y _ _
I. NATURE Or CASE
nig gg. E15 Plaintiff Mary J. Gaetano brought this action
U1 i
against defendant Payco of Wisconsin, Inc., claiming a
.3*-* _i A
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 gt. seg. Plaintiff alleges in her
O i‘.—¤_’·o-
uu?} °"54°.i § complaint that defendant "is a foreign corporation with
Qugss
ga-ga.: g mgl a place of business at 180 North Executive Drive,
(/11-|\|—I•n—I CD
ggjrg-§§m Brookfield, WI." (éompl. para. 5). Plaintiff has filed ‘ A
U) ~ •
LSE a Notice of Deposition dated January 25, 1990, seeking
O··»-I
gg-Egug I to take the deposition of the president or officer of
··-I O mv O
""Jj °‘Op"r§ ii defendant on February 8, 1990 in New Haven, Connecticut.
aa%~.¤j
,_8.r§`Eir§§ Defendant moves for an order from the court that the ’
c:> · .§¥
depgsition not be held on the date or at the place
•· 'E Tiff
mg -- - Wscheduled. ‘
- Du-: 3 V
§¤5$¤§@n A ,
5i ·§ G"? Q 1 - ' i _
E 5F§.-• `lgufszr * I E
-5 =¤ ¤-32:8.V »+ r 2
*2 i.QEiQ {
. U I//{1 , ·`