Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—01016-WWE Document 58 Filed 01 /06/2004 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JULIE DILLON RIPLEY MILLER, NO. 3:03—CV—l0l6 (RNC)(DFM)
Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant,
- against —
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION,
January 6, 2004
Defendant and Counterclaimant.
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS P. FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S LATE-FILED JURY
DEMAND AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE JURY DEMAND
Thomas P. Friedman hereby certifies as follows:
l. I am an associate with the law firm of Paul, Hastings, J anofsky & Walker, LLP,
counsel of record for Defendant and Counterclaimant Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation
("MLCC") in the above—captioned action.
2. I have worked on pre-trial matters for Defendant and am personally familiar with
the issues regarding Plaintiff" s late-tiled jury demand.
3. In a telephone conversation subsequent to the filing of Plaintiff' s purported jury
demand, I asked counsel for Plaintiff; Attomey Begos, to withdraw the jury demand because it is
in violation of the parties’ Stipulation dated November 5, 2003. Attorney Begos refused and
stated that he believed the jury demand was not a violation of the Stipulation because a jury trial
would likely be more expedient than a bench trial.

Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 58 Filed 01/06/2004 Page 2 of 3
4. Defendant has proceeded in discovery as if the action would be tried to a Court
and would suffer prejudice if Plaintiffs Cross—Motion were granted. For example, Defendant’s
counsel chose not to videotape depositions of Plaintiff and her purported loan expert, but would
have done so if Defendant’s counsel knew that any part of this action would be tried to a jury.
This is based on the fact that the reaction of these particular deponents to questioning would be
especially important to capture if a jury would be determining factual issues. While not
concluded, the bulk of those depositions have been completed.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit l is Plaintiffs "Brief in Support of Motion to
C0mpel."
6. Attached hereto as Exhibits 2 through 6 are MLCC’s removal papers, which
contain no demand for a jury. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is the federal civil cover sheet which
expressly states that no jury is demanded. At no time did MLCC request a jury or implying that
it sought a jury in this action, nor did it ever acquiesce or agree to a jury in this action.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 are the papers required to be served on Plaintiff upon
removal pursuant to the local rules. These papers were served and do not contain a jury demand.
DATED: January 6, 2004.
@:9**-·»——»¤ ¢fZ»Q/
2

Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 58 Filed 01/06/2004 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this 6th day of January, 2004, a copy of the foregoing
SUPPLEMENTAL AFF IDAVIT OF THOMAS P. FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRH(E PLAINTIFF’S LATE-FILED JURY DEMAND AND
IN OPPOSITION TO PLA1NTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE IURY
DEMAND was delivered via first class mail to:
Patrick W. Begos, Esq.
BEGOS & HORGAN, LLP
327 Riverside Avenue
Westport, CT 06880
Thomas 1=·. Fncamaii
srm/moss.:
nm.ooozi
3