Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 67-9 Filed O3/10/2004 Page 1 01*3
EXHIBIT II

‘ `I ‘ . _ Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD 4 » Document 67-9 Filed 03/10/2004 Page 2 of 3 .
it _ 4- i . N V ‘ n n _ V I n V I V · · I I 190 Corondelet I’I¤zcr, if . n _
·A · E 8C ' ‘ V ° I St. Louis. MIssourI.63t05-3441 .
4 I -- . ~ · _ ‘ ar4.4a0.rsoo
I j _ A V ‘ cr : LLC - _ _ \ . mx sr4.4ao.rsos ..
. · V ` Anamey: and Counselor: ar Lara · . . » · · - ‘ V l 4 ""”l”‘h“?°h‘°°m
. _ a14.4ao.1é41 dared aaai · · ‘ ` ` V _. ·
. _ _ miehae|[email protected] _ _ V
Q. ‘ ‘ j Febmary.20,2004 ii .. I y y 4
__`'· ·‘ I · Neil Leifer l · · l I A I .. A W _
‘ j Thomton, Early & Narunes _ _ P - _. ‘ .
- · 4 - ` 100 Summer Street,·30thp—Floor - . V ··_ " ‘I _ ` ..--
·’ - _‘ B_oston,MA02ll0 ‘ " .» _ . ~ j _ `V __ _
V n I ·· Re: _ Collins, et v. Olin Corporation andthe Town of Hamden ~ it
_ I - DearNeil:__ I A- an _ " _ , U
_ _ - . I have your letter of February 13, 2004, .It is not at allclear to us that plaintiffs’ an
.. amended complaint can be read to allege successoriliability on the basis of the "mere
· Q continuation" and "product line?’ exceptions to the-Comrecticut rule of no successor
. U i _ _ __ . liability., 4Nonetheless, you are correct that we did discuss that the plaintiffs rely on those 4
. » ’ - · _two exceptions as the basis for asserting Olin’s liability for the pre-December l93 l‘
_ V - . activities ofthe Winchester Repeating Arms‘Company - Delaware. "
‘ I - l · ‘ Olin outlined in a general way its position on the successor liability issues in its __
_ · VV · °_ objections to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests, to which you refer in your February I3 V
I _ 4 letter. We provided somecase law, though by not means attempted to provide an ._
* - ‘ exhaustive list of the case law that supports4 Olin’s position. We are not aware of _ . 4
Connecticut authority that would hold Olin liable as asuccessor under the "product line"
` ° j . exception on the-facts thatthe plaintiffs have pled. Similarly, we are not aware of I ·
V Connecticut authority that would hold Olin liable as a successor rmder the ‘fmere-- ·
4 . continuation" exception in the absence of continuity of ownership. ‘
I Since the plaintiffs’ legal theories have no support in Connecticutgwe will li
_ continue to oppose the burdensome discovery that the plaintiffs have propounded. I ‘ -
. U - wouldbe happy to review case authority that you believe runs counter towhat we have -
~_ . _ . set out in Olinis objections, if you wish to provide that to me. 4- . ‘
· 4 We have sent you close to 800 pages of documents and are prepared toproduce a-·
- Rule 30(b)(6) witness to- discuss those topics in your notice of deposition, other than
I nlbbmm ST. LOUIS · DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS · KANSAS CITY · JEFFERSON CITY · SPRINOFIELD · PEORIA · WICHITA
. - A CHATTANOOGA * DOWNTOWN MEMRI-IIS · EAST MEMPHIS · NASHVILLE .— ·

i A »_Case 3:03-ev-00945-CFD I Document 67-9 · Filed O3/10/2004 - Page3Aof3 . .
t , g Husehgc t t e s Av ,
_ · V ‘EPP_€11b€1‘g€1‘, LLC _ · p· _’ p ‘ l `_ A ` A
AA - _t Neil Tfleeifer A A AA A . t » _ A A A A A
V . _ " A Februa1·y20, 2004 ‘ ‘._4 V ~ _ - . _ , , ’ A _
A . _ those in-paragraphs 5;6A&I1d 7.. Ihave suggested MarchA_23 or 24Afoi· that.deposi_tio;i,Ain A l · . - V `
.. ‘ Ha1*tit`ord.· Please let me know if you wish to proceed with the deposition on one of-thoseA , _
_ _ dates; A . .. - g A ‘ l . ; ‘ ·A V I V ._

p l Q _- · . ; . MiQ1m1 H._W€tm0T€ A A t ‘
_ A e `_ ‘cc:A JoeAFormer _ A pf ‘ · A A A
l7l66l4.05 A A A _ ‘ A A A