Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 9.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 455 Words, 2,864 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/15591/88-1.pdf

Download Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Connecticut ( 9.1 kB)


Preview Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 88

Filed 01/17/2007

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PETER D. MAINS and LORI M. MAINS Plaintiffs, v. SEA RAY BOATS, INC. Defendant. : CASE NO. 3:01cv2402 (AWT) : : : : : : : JANUARY 17, 2007

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), Defendant, Sea Ray Division of Brunswick Corporation (improperly designated in the Complaint as "Sea-Ray Boats, Inc.") ("Sea Ray"), respectfully requests that this Court enter an order that certain discovery sent by Plaintiffs' counsel by e-mail on January 3, 2007, not be allowed because: (1) these discovery requests are largely duplicative of Interrogatories served upon Sea Ray on December 23, 2002, and therefore constitute an improper attempt to circumvent the Court's denial of their Motion to Compel a further response to those prior Interrogatories; (2) the discovery far exceeds the narrow scope permitted by the Court's November 3, 2006 order; (3) the Plaintiffs have submitted more interrogatories than allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (a); (4) all of the discovery requests at issue are untimely, and (5) these discovery requests were not properly served in that they were provided by e-mail only, and without certification of service under Local Rule 5 (b). 1 As set forth in the Affidavit of James H. Rotondo, Sea Ray has attempted to resolve this dispute without court intervention.

Each of the Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production would be subject to various objections, including, but not limited to, the fact that they are unduly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. Sea Ray reserves its right to interpose specific objections to each of the Plaintiffs' individual discovery requests. ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED

1

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 88

Filed 01/17/2007

Page 2 of 2

Sea Ray also requests that it be awarded its costs in preparing and filing this Motion and the accompanying Affidavit and Memorandum of Law. DEFENDANT, SEA RAY BOATS, INC. By /s/ Daniel J. Foster James H. Rotondo (ct05173) [email protected] Daniel J. Foster (ct24975) [email protected] Day Pitney LLP CityPlace I Hartford, CT 06103-3499 (860) 275-0100 (860) 275-0343 fax

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on this date a copy of foregoing Defendant's Motion for Protective Order was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System. /s/ Daniel J. Foster Daniel J. Foster (ct24975)

-2-