Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01007-JCH Document 32-2 Filed 01 /20/2004 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES : NO. 3:O3CVl007 (J CH)
CORPORATION, · :
Plaintiff,
v. :
PARKER HANNIFIN
CORPORATION, :
Defendant. JANUARY 20, 2004
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES W. FORTUNE IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Charles W. Fortune, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
l. I am over the age of 18 and believe in the obligation of an oath.
2. I am a partner with the law finn of Day, Berry & Howard LLP, counsel to the
plaintiff United Technologies Corporation, in the above captioned action. I submit this affidavit
in support of the plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order dated January 16, 2004.
3. I contacted counsel for the defendant and asked if the defendant would agree to
postpone discovery in this case pending the decision on the Motion to Stay. Counsel for the
defendant stated that it was unwilling to do so.
4. I also brought to the attention of counsel for the defendant that the defendant’s
interrogatories exceeded the twenty-five (25) interrogatory limit contained in Rule 33(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, I stated that before we could respond to the

Case 3:03-cv-01007-JCH Document 32-2 Filed 01/20/2004 Page 2 of 2
interrogatories, the defendant should reduce the number to 25 or specify which 25 it sought to have
answered.
5. Counsel for the defendant was unwilling to revise the interrogatories and took the
position that the Court’s endorsed ruling on defendant’s Rule 26(f) Report implicitly gave the
defendant permission to file more than 25 interrogatories.
6. I noted that not only was this a misreading of the endorsed ruling (which merely
approved the suggested deadlines for discovery), but that it also made no sense because such an
interpretation of the endorsement would mean that the Court, in effect, gave the defendant carte
blanche to serve as many interrogatories as it wished, as the defendant’s Rule 26(i) Report merely
referenced the need for more than twenty-five (25) interrogatories and did not mention a number
of interrogatories the defendant wished to serve.
7. I hereby certify in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c) and D. Conn. L. R.
37(a)2 that the movant has in good faith conferred with the defendant’s counsel in detail in an
effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without the intervention of the
Court, but was unable to reach such an agreement.
Charles W. Fortune
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this QQ_th day of January, 2004,.
Commissioner of the Superior Court
-2-