Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01036-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/15/2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------——-—---------------—--—----------- — —--------------— X
CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., :
Piaimarr, S
v.
: Civil Action No. 3 :03CVl036 (DJ S)
GRAND ADVENTURES TOUR & :
TRAVEL PUBLISHING CORPORATION, :
INTERLINE TRAVEL & TOUR, INC., 1
Defendants. April 14, 2005
--————--------------------—--—---------------- — ——--------- X
AF F IDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT INTERLINE TRAVEL & TOUR, INC., TO
ANSWER INTERROGATORIES AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF NEW YOR )
JOEL M. SHAFFERMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
l. I am a member of the firm of Solomon Pearl Blum Heymann & Stich, .
LLP, and I represent the Plaintiff Call Center Technologies, Inc. in the above-referenced matter.
I make thisaffidavit pursuant to D. Conn. L. R. 37(a)(2) in support of Plaintiffs Motion to
Compel Defendant Interline Travel & Tour, Inc., ("Interline") to Answer Interrogatories and to
Produce Documents (the "Motion to Compel").
2. As shown below, I have conferred with counsel for Interline as discussed
more fully below in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement, and without the Court’s

Case 3:03-cv-01036-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/15/2005 Page 2 of 4
intervention, the issues raised by the Motion to Compel. Despite these efforts, however, I have
been unable to reach such an agreement with Interline’s counsel.
3. Interline served discovery responses upon Plaintiff on March 3l, 2005.
4. On April 4, 2005, I contacted by email and by telephone Interline’s
cotmsel Laura F. Baldini, concerning Interline’s responses to Plaintiffs requests for
interrogatories and for production of documents, which I deemed inadequate, incomplete, and/or
evasive.
5. Attorney Baldini and I discussed Interline’s discovery responses and
objections. Attorney Baldini agreed to provide the names of certain present employees of
Interline, however Attorney Baldini stood upon Interline’s objections, and subsequently issued a
letter to me, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which among other things, suggested that Plaintiff
derive certain information requested in Interrogatories by reviewing certain documents produced
by Interline, and threatened to seek sanctions against me if Plaintiff continued this litigation
against Interline.
6. Subsequently, I have had several conversations with Attorney Baldini
about this issue. Most recently, on April 13, 2005, during a break between depositions in this
case, I had a telephone conversation with Attorney Baldini that lasted more than a half an hour.
During this conversation Attorney Baldini and I discussed each itemized request set forth in this
motion. Although Attorney Baldini agreed to see if she could obtain a small amount of the items
requested, she said that it would be best for the depositions to conclude, at which time she
believed that I would likely be convinced that this action should be withdrawn. In response I
told Attorney Baldini that since CCT had retained Austin, Texas counsel to conduct the
l 2

Case 3:03-cv-01036-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/15/2005 Page 3 of 4
depositions in Austin, Texas: I would need to consult with him prior to making such a critical
decision. However, since the Discovery Cutoff in this case is April 15, 2005, both Texas
Counsel and I asked Attorney Baldini if she would consent to an extension of the Discovery
Cutoff for one (1) week so that I would have sufficient time to discuss the matter with Texas
counsel and perhaps even review a "dirty draft" of the deposition transcripts. Attorney Baldini
refused this request, thus giving me no choice but to make this motion. Thus I have been unable
to reach an acceptable agreement with Attorney Baldini to produce responses fully and
completely as are requested in the Motion to Compel.
7. As of the present date, I have not received supplemental answers from
Interline to plaintiff s requests for interrogatories or production of documents.
8. For the foregoing reasons, and those set forth in the accompanying
memorandum, I respectfully request that the Court gran Plaintiff s motion to co . i` I
Joe .Sh an (JS-1055)
omon Pearl Blum Heymann & Stich, LLP
0 Wall Street, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: (212) 267-7600
Facsimile: (212) 267-2030
E-mail: [email protected]
Sworn to before me this
14th day of April, 2005
A Notary Public
Jlll H. Teltel
Notary Public, State of New York 3
Repistration #02TE5069470
_ Qua ifled ln New York County
My Commlsslon Expires Nov. 25Q99€
LW

Case 3:03-cv-01036-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/15/2005 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-—---—---------—-----—----------------— - ------———-—------- X
CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., :
Piamurr, Z
v.
: Civil Action N0. 3:03CV1036 (DJ S)
GRAND ADVENTURES TOUR & :
TRAVEL PUBLISHING CORPORATION, :
INTERLINE TRAVEL & TOUR, INC., :
Defendants. April 14, 2005
--—--—-———---—------------——-——------------——— - —---------- X
V CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The Lmdersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within and foregoing
was served via United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, and by facsimile, on this 14th day
of April, 2005 upon all pro se parties and counsel of record, as follows:
Laura F. Baldini, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant Interline Travel & Tour, Inc.
2 Batterson Park Road, 2nd Floor
Farmington, CT 06032
Telephone: 860-874-8463
Facsimi 6l -9823
(

Joel Shaffe S-1055) _
S {onion Pear lum Heymann & Stich, LLP
0 Wall Street, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: (212) 267-7600
Facsimile: (212) 267-2030
E-mail: [email protected]
2