Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 67-8 Filed O3/10/2004 Page10f3
EXHIBIT G I

V I - V ., - Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD _` Document 67-8 Filed 03/10/2004 Page 2 of 3
VI _AT,VTQRb{EYS AT Q V VI » · - I ‘~ V
I Thornton .& Naumes LLP i 4 I 4 V . V
· V » _ . 4 . IOO Summer St.- 30th Floory Bost0n,·MA 02l I0 · 6l 7-7204333 V
. - ‘ ;`;;f:_‘f;';}g‘tj;‘;jlj“£f':A*lQ)ME& ’t’*’· - 4 V - » - ren Free 800-431-4600 sAx# 617-720-2445 `
RobertT.Naumes I` V · I I · WWW.l2€l"il3W.CQm _
- Neil ·r..1.eater ima. Miami
' V _ I' I David ). McMorris (NYE MA) V V V · . I. _ .
I ‘ _ ·Edwin L. Wallace I . · VI ` V · -
~ Robert M. Byrne. lr. - · ·
· - David4C.I$trouss _ ‘ I `
‘ · ioseph R. Donohue (ME 8 MA) V V
7 _ "Patrlcia M. Flannery . ‘ I ‘ IV ` _ · ‘ _ .
* — Andrew S. Wainwright I j ` ‘
. _ I - _MlchaelA Lesser I » » .
` . _ Marilyn T. McGoldrick . . _
I . Garrett I. Bradley ` . I ‘ ‘ - ‘ V = _'
» y and 1. Mueneii _ » .
V . · _ Kristen Marquis Fritz V _ · V _ V
r ‘ V _ _ i . 4 · February 13, 2004 _ . j
· I V - V Michael H. W¢¤11§féQVIES¢l- “ — `I . I I _ » II ‘ ` ' . `
Vi V I I , V HUSCH EPPENBERGER, LLC . V - `
I - 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 ~ . _ .
· _ V St. Louis, Missouri 63105 V . .
t I I I -Re: Collins Olin Corporation, et al -
IV I Dear Mike: ` ‘ V
—. _ · · I am in receipt of defend-ant‘Olin Corporati0n’s responses to plaintiffs’ discovery I · .
` requests on the issue of successor liability. Those discovery requests consist of a set of
V I _ interrogatories, a set for requests for the production of documents anda set_of requests for ° e .
V · - V admissions pursuant to Rules 33, 34 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I
am writing to request an opportunity to meet and confer with you regarding the `
._ . sufficiency of Olinisresponses. The basis for my belief that these discovery responses · V
4 are insufficient is set forth below. ‘ °
I V As you may recall, you and I discussed these discovery requests in early January I
· 4 . 2004 in connection with your request for additional time to prepare Olin’s responses. At
that time, I explained to you that the plaintiffs’ would seek to establish Olin’s liability as
‘ a successor to Winchester on the basis of either the "mere continuation" exception or the I
V · I "product. line" exception, or both, of the rules concerning successor liability. I further ·
indicated that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint could be fairly read to plead either`or V . _
VM both of those exceptions. II further indicated that each ofthe discovery requests that had
- “ been propounded was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible · 4
. _ . evidence to establish either or both of those bases for successor liability.
` - · V When I received Olin’s discovery responses oniliebruary 9,I 2004, it became clear
to me that Olin has decided that the "product line" exception is not available in this case,
· I

· _ ‘ - Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 67-8 _ Filed 03/10/2004 Page 3 of 3
. Michael H. Wetmore, Esq. · . - 0 ‘ 0 C
' February 13,2004 ` · 0 j _ _ ._.·
- - Page 2 I A- t -. A · i
_ · as a matter of law, and that theonly material issueon the "mere continuation" exception l
A J · ` _ concems thecontinuity of ownership. See. Olin’s General Objection No. 1 to Plaintiffs’ r ‘
‘ ` Y _· Requests for Admissions and Olin’s General Objection No. 3 to Plaintiffs’ First Set of C ‘ *
A » l ° Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. On the basis of those legal 0
· ‘ Z jndings, Olin has refused to answer any interrogatories, respond to any requests for I ‘ · · W
‘ .- ‘ 4 ` sadmissions or to produce responsive documents that relate to the "product line" exception
- or to other factors relevant to the "mere continuation" exception. Wetake issue with -that - n
._,position. ` _· _ .·__ i i ° _ ‘ -
. - . ; · . We believe that the Court, not parties, or their counsel, rhavethe authority to ‘
. Q determine what claims, theories or defensesare available in this case and consequently V . »
. what discovery may be obtained with respect to each. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(‘1) plainly .
_ ‘ 1 " states that "[p]ai‘ties may _obtain_discovery_ regarding any matter, not privileged, that is ‘ j _
‘ V’ °' , relevant tojthe claim or defense of any party Q..’7 These discovery requests are relevant to O
[ - both of our theories of successor liability. Weapparently disagree about the applicability
‘ _ » » i »A or availabilityof certain theories in this case, or what material issuesremain with respect _
F " ° ~ toany of them, but until the Court has ruled them out or ruled that something is not ‘
" _ - material,~it is improper for a party to arrogate that role to itself and then refuse to produce A
‘ Q discovery. This is precisely what Olin has done. .
" . I request that you call me upon your receipt of this letter and set a time within the `
‘ = - A next seven (7) businesstdays tondiscussthis objection and whether Olin is willing to l
ij - O produce documents, witnesses and otherwise respond to these discovery requests as
. »_ posed so that we can present the question of the applicability and availability of these ` _
. ·‘ theories to the Court on a full record, ~ ` ° ‘
W i Sincerely, 't _ e
· A , 1 ‘ ’ .
- . ` A RA - - - . | Nei ‘
‘ · J __ cc: All Counsel _of Record A A