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

Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU

Document 61

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOSEPH ATTIAS & HAIM ATTIAS VS. PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03 CV 01009 (SRU) OCTOBER 4, 2004

DEFENDANT'S, PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, OBJECTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS The defendant, Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut, hereby objects to the plaintiff's motion for order from the Court compelling the defendant to comply with plaintiffs' discovery requests of July 7, 2004. The defendant has complied with the discovery requests by identifying those items that the defendant has determined were misrepresentations on the part of the plaintiffs, as referenced in the defendant's Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim filed on January 12, 2004. The burden falls on the plaintiff to produce evidence as to the nature and extent of the repairs, the cost of repairs, and the condition of the premises at the time of the loss as the basis for proving the plaintiffs' alleged damages in this matter. Therefore, the defendant may seek to demonstrate the plaintiffs' misrepresentations through cross-examination of the witnesses regarding prior statements and testimony and the documents produced by the plaintiffs. The

SR/224941

Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU

Document 61

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 2 of 3

means by which the defendant will perform the cross-examination of any witness to this matter is not subject to discovery. The plaintiffs are in possession of all witness statements, bank records, credit card statements, payment records, construction and renovation contracts and/or agreements, all of which are the basis for the plaintiffs' establishment of damages. The defendant has and will rely upon the statements, testimony and documentary production of the plaintiffs to establish that the plaintiffs have made certain material misrepresentations regarding the nature and extent of the work, which was performed to the property from the date of purchase, by the plaintiffs until the date of loss. The manner in which such cross-examination is prepared or conducted is not a reasonable area of inquiry for the purposes of discovery. The defendant therefore objects to the plaintiffs' requests for additional compliance with the discovery requests as the plaintiffs have been adequately apprised of the basis for the defendant's allegations of misrepresentation through the pleadings to date.

Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU

Document 61

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 3 of 3

DEFENDANT, PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

By

\S Heather J. Adams-Beman Skelley Rottner P.C. P.O. Box 340890 Hartford, CT 06134-0890 Tel. (860) 561-7077 Fax (860) 561-7088 Federal Bar No. ct24091

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on October 4, 2004, to the following counsel of record: Attorney Cheryl E. Heffernan Farver & Heffernan 2842 Old Dixwell Avenue Hamden, CT 06518 Tel. (203) 288-8266

\S\ Heather J. Adams-Beman