Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01011-AWT Document 73 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
NICHOIDAS CAGGIANIELLO, NEIL
HOWARD and THOMAS FALCO, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated employees of FSG Privatair, Inc.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03CV10‘I1(AWT)
Plaintiffs,
vs. August 5, 2005
FSG PRIVATAIR, INC., and in their
individual and official capacities DAVID C.
HURLEY, HUGH F. REGAN, THOMAS H.
MILLER and THOMAS L. CONNELLY
G Defendants.
OBJECTION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS
Plaintiffs, Nicholas Caggianiello, Neil Howard and Thomas Falco, by their
undersigned attorneys, hereby objectto the Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and for
Sanctions and state as follows.
1. The plaintiffs hereby object to the defendant’s motion for protective order on
the basis that Defendants have no right pursuant to Rule 26 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to move for protective order for the following reasons:
(a) On February 12, 2004, Hon. Alvin W. Thompson, heard, via
telephonic conference, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time and heard
arguments from both Plaintiff and Defendant regarding disputes over discovery
requests and depositions. I
(b) More specifically, during this conference, Plaintiff asked the Court
whether they would be permitted to proceed with the depositions of Defendant
Hugh Regan ("Regan") that they had noticed for early March. (Transcript at 9,
line 11).
.— (c) Defendant complained and objected to the scheduled depositions.

Case 3:03-cv-0101 1-AWT Document 73 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 2 of 3
, (d) Judge Thompson, despite the protestations about having the said
depositions taken, specifically and expressly declared that the deposition could
take place if necessary, but that they would be limited in scope.
” (e) Judge Thompson further made clear that if there were any
problems with the taking of the depositions that the defendants should discuss
the problems and let the court know of such problems. (Transcript at 11, line 21-
23).
(f) Defendants never contacted the court or Judge Thompson with
any problems regarding the orders allowing for the deposition to take place.
2. Despite the good faith efforts of the Plaintiffs to take the scheduled
deposition, Defendants have failed to cooperate and comply with the orders.
3. Pursuant to Rule 26 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, scheduled
F deposition is not an annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or an undue burden on the
defendant in any way. Moreover, this Court has specifically addressed this issue and has
~ concluded that depositions — limited to subject matter inquiries —— are permissible.
Therefore, and in conformity with the Federal Rules, justice does not require this court to
protect the defendant with a motion for protective order.
WHEREFORE, for the above-stated reasons and for good and just cause, the
Plaintiffs request that this court grant deny Defendants’ lVlotion and enter the appropriate
relief.
Dated at Fairfield, Connecticut
August 5, 2005
& Respectfully submitted,
Jam . al in, Esq. (ct08535)
COL , BALDWIN & CRAFT, LLC.
1261 Post Road, P.O. Box 577
Fairfield, CT 06824
Tel. (203) 319-0800 »
» Fax (203) 319-1210
2

Case 3:03-cv-0101 1-AWT Document 73 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 3 of 3
A CERTIFICATION I
This is to certify that a copy of this Objection to Defendants’ Motion to Exempt from
Answering Complaint was sent by first class mail on August 5, 2005 to the following counsel
of record:
Joseph C. Maya, Esq. Richard J. Diviney, Esq.
Russell J. Sweeting, Esq. 65 Jesup Road
lVlaya & Associates, P.C. PO Box 390 _
183 Sherman Street Westport, . 06881-0390
Fairfield, CT 06824 · l
1 r
T. Baldwin, Esq.
3