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

em. me t2=ePM ·‘ y » · 1‘ _. p e ti-itil t- it ~ ·
_ Case 3;03-cv-Q0369—DJ_S 1 Document 29-3 Flled 01/30/2004 1 Page il .0i 1 1 yp _
{ f Manrm; Ltroas ta Crertoisier, LLP _ i 1 ’ 1 ” 1
_ I I -CDUNSI1£LOR,S AT L.Ar'W_ I p _ H { p -
` `I g-pnMycin,¤ci»uencrreur new vent. NEW YORK ~ l I- l `pi
in Iil`7 B“t`°'*d_S¤ii“* ` = _ ` ` ` ' ` I l i ‘ Telephcnm cog gyggngq . i1 .
U - St¤;=¤tFerd.PG¤;t¤eeti¤ut oeeer _ January 20: 2004 ,- ‘~ Facsimile eng 973.5e5e l _ _ p
` - ` { I ' ' ' \W¥'W;x¤.1c~]nw.¢¤m i i
_ VLM FACSIMILEP[(203).32#—929J] _ _ . · ‘ A l ` ` _ n
An-d FI1e$‘T.CLASSALaH. . -
l Steven J. Yo1.ines,IEsq. .. 1. .· . 1 - -
— p Epstein Becker & Green, PC. _ P_ _ — _ . . ` l q .
S _1 One Landmark Square, Suite 1800 - ·_. ` . . _ -
Stamford, CT 05901~2601 ‘ " ‘ ~ _p
l l J _ _: Krmios v. USTIM. ¢mdM'm·k Ulies _1 1 p ` l i
p _Dear Steve: ~ . J _ q _ _
_ n I have received your fax Vbearirig teday’s date seeking to preclude plaintiff noni taking 1.
any additional depositions and, more specifteally, canceling these that have been seheduled for -
‘ ‘ some time; This obstzruotioiiist response te a proposed amendment that adds nc new.fact1,1a,] 1
allegatioiis is specious. There is no authority for placing an action on hold pending a ruling en a _
` - ` motion to amend. Hanldy I are quite surprised at yeurposition. I strongly suggest yea reeensider
. p or we have no eheiee butte seek year eenipliaeee threeghe eeurt order. 1 J ` *
r - v 11
_ -‘ ‘ _ SoottR._ucas p S ‘· { -1 ·
. _ cc: M]s.Lyun_IQe11i¤S . _ 1 1 I ‘ 1 ` ` y . _ p