Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

i » Case 3:03-cv-O1 OQ/4:5] BA Document 35 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 1 of 3
I ‘ “ I
. ” Fir;
_? _')( A`-
. UNITED STATES DISTRICT couifr rz.? 1; _)
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICU'I3,»_ Q.: uw L _ "' Jiri ffy #03; .
"*’é“a=i j;~€‘l·'»*»‘é‘ r I
H. JONATHAN FRANK, MORGAN FRANK W Y
and FRANK FAMILY 1996 TRUST (on behalf :
of themselves and REFLEXITE : CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:O3C\/1014 (JBA)
CORPORATION), :
Prarurirrs, E é
vs.
ARTHUR LOVETERE, CECIL URSPRUNG,
LOUIS J. BACCEI, WORTH LOOMIS, : i
THEODORE PATLOVICH, STEPHEN J. ; Q
RAFFAY, WILLIAM P. ROWLAND, PETER : i
EIO (individually and in their capacity as :
members of the Board of Directors of Reflexite :
Corporation) and REFLEXITE 2
CORPORATION :
Defendants. OCTOBER 29, 2003
i
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER `
STAYING INTERMIM DISCOVERY PENDING DETERMINATION \
OF PLAINTIFFS’ STANDING
The defendant, Reflexite Corporation (the "Corporation") hereby files its Reply in
response to the Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order Staying Interim
Discovery. In response to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, the Corporation adopts the arguments set forth
in the Defendants’, Arthur Lovetree, Louis J. Baccei, Worth Loomis, Theodore Patlovich,
Stephen J. Raffay and Peter Eio (the “Outside Directors”), Reply Brief as well as those
arguments set forth in William P. Rowland’s Reply Brief. In addition, the Corporation would
like to point out to the Court that P1aintiffs’ reliance on J oy v. North 519 F. Supp. 1312
i

1 .. /4
i Case 3:03-cv-OWQQJBA Document 35 Filed 10/2Q[g)O3 Page 2 of 3 l
l A l
(D. Conn. 1981) and J oy v. North, 692 F. 2d 886 (2d. Cir. 1982) is misguided as Connecticut J
T Statute has overruled those cases. §@ Finley v. Superior Court for the County of Orange, l
80 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1159 (Cal. Ct., App. 2000) (stating Joy v. North overruled by Conn. Gen. `
Stat. § 33-724).1 The Corporation resewes the right to supplement this Reply Brief prior to the
time limit set forth in Rule 9(g) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. E
DEFENDANT I
RQEFLEXITE CORPORATION 2
i A. Raa —ct04ll6
J I'1 M. Kuselias — ct20293 ?
obinson & Cole LLP
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3597
email: _jl_q.1__s_el.iz1sqi)rc.com
email: graabe éi>rc.co1r1 p
tel. no. (860) 275-8200 2
fax no. (860) 275-8299
l
l
I
1 The Corporation intends to fully brief these issues in its Motion to Dismiss.
- 2 - [

I -. I. JI
. ¤· ` . ’ I
I Case 3:03-cv-O10@1;)JBA Document 35 FIIed 10/Q?/@03 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile and via first class
mail, postage prepaid, on the 29th day of October, 2003, to: H
Michael Considine, Esq. Edward F. Spinella, Esq.
Patricia M. Canavan, Esq. Reid and Riege, P.C.
Terence J. Gallagher, Esq. One Financial Plaza .
Day, Berry & Howard LLP Hartford, CT 06103
One Canterbury Green I
Stamford, CT 06901 p
Richard M. Stassberg, Esq. James T. Cowdery, Esq. I
Jeffrey Alan Simes, Esq. Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy, L.L.C. I
Goodwin Procter LLP 750 Main Street
599 Lexington Avenue Hartford, CT 06103-2703
New York, NY 10022
James T. Shearin, Esq. ,
Sheila A. Denton, Esq.
Pullman & Comley, LLC I
850 Main Street
P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601 —7006
I
I
. _________· I
. Kuselias I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
- 3 - i