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

|""_—”'—“m%“——_—` ""`I I
F ' I
I _ A Case 3:03-cv-OO45@\5IRK Document 29 Fnled O4/Og€OO4 Page/Qgmo
I (T EI"
7"ln $$22
“ -·~¤ ji
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT coumi is-ai; gg lj} é
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Qjgg ;g MJ I
Kerin Carmody fri ii I
Plaintiff
)
VS )CIVIL ACTION NO.
)303CV00456(JBA)
)
Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. ) I
Defendant )APRIL 6, 2004 _
Defendant's Memorandum In Opposition To I
P1aintiff’s Motion To Compel ,
By pleadings dated March 3l, 2004, the plaintiff has
filed for an extension of pre—trial deadlines and a I
Motion To Compel. With respect to the Motion for I
I
Extension. of Pre—trial Deadlines, the defendant has .no E
i
objection to plaintiff’s extension of time to complete I
discovery. With respect to the Motion To Compel,
sanctions should not be entered against the defendant as I
it has provided the plaintiff with all information that I
has been ordered to be disclosed in this matter. with I
respect to prior reports of injury, plaintiff's counsel I
has been informed that histories have been obtained from I

i _ . Case 3:03-cv-OO4@RK Document 29 Filed O4/O(7/$004 Page20f4 {
[ i
:
i 1
W T
i the Trumbull store which is involved in this incident and 5
the two closest to it, those located in Fairfield and {
Branford. In the fourteen months those stores were open 5
prior to Ms. Carmody’s fall, there were a total of two !
reports of falls claimed to be caused by wet conditions J
near an entrance. This shows no pattern of knowledge of i
a problem at these stores for which any further discovery {
is warranted. S
With respect to the names and addresses of l
witnesses, the initial report in this action prepared by E
the Store Manager reported no witnesses to the incident. a
T}1S SIISWSIS to j.I1CS.1Z`I`OQ`6.COI`j.SS WSIS pI`SpB.I`Sd b8.SSC-1 U.pOIl
this information and provided to the plaintiff in early Q
December, 2003. Within two months of that compliance, K
the defendant’s counsel became aware that a Kohl's
cashier, Jerri Thorton, was a witness to this incident. }
This information was provided to plaintiff's counsel and E
he took Ms. Thorton's deposition in late March. At her `
l
deposition, Ms. Thorton testified that she knew of other Q
J
P


\ . Case 3:03-cv-OO@§-MRK Document 29 Filed Oi/O3/2004 Page 3 of 4
I employees that were at the store on the date of the \
I incident and who reported to the scene of the fall after (
it occurred. No statement had been taken of Jerri I
N Thorton at any time in this matter and no one had known \
i of these “potential” other witnesses until her deposition K
was taken in this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel is free to `
conduct discovery regarding those individuals and no [
sanctions need to be entered. J
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion To
Compel should be denied.
l
THE DEFENDANT i
JZ- M
.¢~‘$;"f __ _..,.
1sY/
BAR P. BELETSK
R CIO & BELE Y !
l0 Main S eet
Suite 2
East Haven, CT 06512
(203)469—808O
Federal Bar: ct 05313 l
i
l

i Case 3:03-cv-0%%-MRK Document 29 Filed O-{UO?/2004 Page40f4
i CERTIFICATION i
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was
, mailed, postage prepaid, First Class Mail, this 6th day
i of April, 2004 to the following:
Richard H. Greene, Esq. i
43l Howe Avenue l
Shelton, CT 06484 _
BA§Y P. BELETSKY

I
k