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


File Size: 26.5 kB
Pages: 1
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 386 Words, 2,456 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22486/29-2.pdf

Download Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 26.5 kB)


Preview Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
1 s 1 _I GaseI3:»O3-cv-003.69-DJS Document 29-2 _ - Filed O1/30/2004 Page 1 of 1 t -
1 .. I EPETLIEJIHI Eur:-EEE as GREEN, FLC. ‘ I. _ ~
I I _ I A'l"‘1‘_C|IRN EYE AT 1,Avv 1 p .
1 _ - _ puns uauoraaau eooaee .
1 _ I _` ` 1- .EuiTE11Ei¤¤ 1 _ I ,
I _ I BT-°»t·’lFDRl'3,.DT oesoi-see-i 1 `
‘ - - ‘ - eoe.e4e.svs7 - 1 U * ‘ _ ‘ 1
` 1 · ·‘ I _`1 ` ;; F'A‘.:<: LZl'J5.324.E|2E|'l Q I
1 stavsr~i..11YouNes 1 1 ‘ ~EEELAw‘°¤M 1 1 1
rei.; 203 eee.?-424 1 _
FAX: 2us1s241s2a1- 1 - -- . .
evour·1Es@EseLAw1com1 -· _ 1 1- t _ 1
1 I I -l _ `I _ _J`aru1ary20,2OO4 I _ I I 1 I
II``I `i` ``"I“ , ' FACS f I 1 I _ ,
Scott Lucas, Esq. I - 1
Martin Lucas Sc Chioffi LLP t ' * J
1177 Broad Street I 1 1 _ p t —
_ Stamford, CT -06901 1“ t I -
`_ Re:I Lynn I-!. Kanios v. UST, Inc. and Msrk Uliasz I ‘ _ II
1 DearScott; ‘ .` J pI I I _ I UI I
J I I We received your Motion to Amend Complaint on January 15, 2004. We will be. _
filing an Objection and- requesting costs/fees in response thereto. However, in light of your
‘ Motion, we will also be filing a Motion for Protective Order seeking to, among other things, . 1
_1 ‘ ` preclude anyfurther discovery, includingtthe scheduled depositions of various UST employees,
until such time as the Court renders a ruling on the proposed amendrnent ` ` ‘
UST should asses required to continuewith discovery, thereby incurring the cost
of preparing and presenting witnesses on a potenti,al_new claim, unless the. Court rules in your 1
favor. Obviously, any amendment to the complaint will not only .aflE`ect the extent1arid1 nature. of .
. preparation and cross examination ofwitnesses, but any fruther strategic decisions to be made in
1 ‘l;h.is matter. Accordingly, unless. the proposed amendment is withdrawn, the depositions
scheduled must go off tmtil the Court rules orfyour request. X " 1 -
. I I t _ _ 1 Sine ely, l 1 ’ I ‘ II - —
( I Q II 1 1 Steven J Iounes · - 1 _ I It I
I SJY;kl;» I I I _ II _ _ ` 1 II 1
1 9 - ‘ .1l— - 1 ` I1 . — 1
Z ' KTLANTL i' EDETCIN * DHIEAISIZI • DALLAS • HE|LlE`I"¤I*·| `•` I.UI·.·LHGELEE I l
-1II I ST:d:Z612vI- NEVECERK * NEW f'1'DRJ€. " 1,QAN FU,,¤:N&l5Gd * ETAMFTJRD '* WAEHINEITDN, DJ:. __ A II p -I ` _ I