Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 260 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CLARENCE R. COLLINS, Jr., et al. : CIVIL ACTION
No. 303CV945 (CFD)
V. Q
OLIN CORPORATION : August 7, 2008
OLIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF
REPRESENTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS
Olin Corporation ("Olin”) moves the Court, p1u·suant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
37, 30(a)(2) and 30(d)(1), to compel tl1e deposition of each Representative Class Member
("RCM") who will be the subject of the upcoming trial on the issues of liability and damages.
The parties recently identified 16 RCMs to take part in the upcoming trial. Olin has
attempted to proceed with depositions of the 16 RCMs in advance of the November 30, 2008 fact
discovery deadline. Plaintiffs have refused to schedule the deposition of any RCM who was
previously deposed—which is 15 of the 16 RCMs selected to participate in the trial.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 37(a), the undersigned cotmsel submits herewith an afndavit
certifying that they have conferred with Piaintiffs’ counsel in a good faith effort to schedule the
RCM depositions without court action, but that such effort has not resulted in an agreement on
the RCM depositions. See, August 7, 2008 Affidavit of Joel B. Samson attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
As described in Exhibit 1, the parties exchanged correspondence between July 21 and
July 29, 2008 and participated in a conference call on Friday August 1, 2008 in efforts to resolve
this dispute. In Olin’s correspondence and during the conference call Olin requested a four hour
3059399

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 260 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 2 of 4
deposition with each previously deposed RCM in order to cover all issues of liability and
damages and to ensure that all information available to Olin is accurate and current. Plaintiffs
rejected Olin’s request. During the discussions, Plaintiffs stated that if any depositions did go
forward, Plaintiffs would only agree to a three hour deposition and that there would have to be
_ limitations with respect to the topics to be covered.
The parties discussed the concept of limiting topics to be covered but no agreement could
be reached. Olin sees no practical way to limit the scope in advance of the deposition in any
meaningful way. Certainly Olin will have to ask predicate questions and re—establish certain
I points discussed during the tirst deposition in order to explore new developments and issues that
did not exist when Plaintiffs were originally deposed back in 2004 and 2005. Trying to limit the
scope of the RCM depositions in advance will not only be extremely difficult, it will invite
constant objections during the depositions on any area that is even close to a perceived “limited"
topic.
The fact that Olin is only asking for four hours with each deponent should alleviate any
concern that Olin will spend significant time on issues previously covered unless such issues are
implicated by infomation, circumstances and/or new theories that arose after Plaintiffs were tirst
deposed.
Olin’s request for an additional four hours of actual deposition time with each Plaintiff
who was previously deposed is consistent with Rules 30(a)(2) and 30(d)(l), and the cases
applying these rules.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a)(l), Olin submits herewith the accompanying
memorandum of law in support of the instant motion.
2029299 2

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 260 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 3 of 4
`WHEREFORE, Olin Corporation respectfully requests that the Court order that each
Representative Class Member who has already been deposed appear for an additional four hours
of actual deposition time and that the scope of such deposition not be limited, that is to say that
i Olin Corporation be permitted to inquire into all issues of liability and damages, including old
issues to the extent that they are implicated by information, circumstances and/or new theories
that arose after a Representative Class Member was first deposed.
Respectfully Submitted,
HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS, LLP
ichael H. Wetmore (ct24899)
Joel B. Samson (ct24898)
Omri E. Praiss (ECF registration pending)
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Telephone: 314-480-1500
Fax: 314-480-1505
[email protected]
joel.samson@,i1usch.com
omri.praiss@1;usch.com
and
BROWN RUDNICK BERLACK ISRAELS LLP
Mark S. Baldwin, Esq.
185 Asylum St.
CityPlace I, 38th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: 860-509-6500
Fax: 860-509-6501
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant Olin Corporation
2059299 3
..

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 260 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .
I hereby certify that on August 7, 2008, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which
will serve all counsel of record by operation ofthe if/I/ECF system.
2059399 4