Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

» Case 3:03-cv-0101 1-AWT Document 77 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
. DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
NICHOLAS CAGGIANIELLO, NEIL CASE NO. 303CVl 0l l(AWT)
HOWARD and THOMAS FALCO, on 2
behalf of themselves and all other similarly :
. situated employees of FSG PrivatAir, Inc. 2
V PLAINTIFFS,
VS. :
FSG PRIVATAIR, INC. and in their
individual and official capacities DAVID C. 2
HURLEY, HUGH F. REGAN, THOMAS H. 2
MILLER and THOMAS L. CONNELLY :
DEFENDANTS. AUGUST 15, 2005
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants
respectfully submit this reply memorandum of law in further support of their Motion for
Protective Order and Briefing Schedule.
The Defendants have the right to move for a protective order pursuant to Rule
26(c) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As referenced in Plaintiffs’ Objection,
Judge Thompson confirmed on February l2, 2004 that scheduled deposition noticed by
the Plaintiffs could take place in March, 2004. However, the depositions were cancelled
by the Plaintiffs and were not rescheduled before April 26, 2004, the court ordered
deadline for subject matter jurisdiction discovery to be completed as confirmed in Judge
Thompson’s Order dated December 24, 2003. The Plaintiffs are barred from taking
depositions in this case pursuant to court order.

Case 3:03-cv—01 O1 1-AWT Document 77 I Filed 08/16/2005 Page 2 of 3
As outlined in Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Briefing Schedule
and accompanying Memorandum, the undersigned contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel in an
effort to resolve this discovery dispute regarding depositions before contacting the Court
by way of motion in accordance with Rule 26(c). Plaintiffs’ argument that the
Defendants have not complied with a ruling by Judge Thompson is without merit.
Finally, if the Court considers allowing depositions, the Plaintiffs’ Notice of
Deposition of Defendant Hugh Regan is defective on its face. The Notice does not limit
the scope of the deposition to subject matter jurisdiction and the issue of whether FSG
PrivatAir, Inc. ("PrivatAir") is a common air carrier.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendants respectfully request that a
Protective Order be granted to prevent depositions and that a briefing schedule be
approved for the filing of Renewed Motions to Dismiss and for Sanctions.
Respectfully Submitted
THE DEFENDANTS.
By:
Joseph C. Ma` Esq. ct/ 17742
Russell J. Sweeting, Esq. ct/24877
Maya & Associates, P. C.
266 Post Road East
Westport, CT 06880
Telephone: (203) 221-3100
Fax No: (203) 221-3199
2

Case 3:03-cv-01011-AWT Document 77 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATION
_ This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed this 15th day of August
2005 to:
James T. Baldwin, Esq.
John B. Kaiser, Esq.
Coles, Baldwin & Craft, LLC
1261 Post Road, P.O. Box 577
Fairfield, CT 06824 I q q
Y 6// / I `
Russell J. Sweeting
3