Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

` A Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 43 Filed O2/O9/2004 Page 1 of 4 I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Qi {gym i
DISTRICT or CONNECTICUT t t- Ii Ii p
=:RIDGEPoRT AND PORT JEFFERSON Efii: .- A aj, ,_ ,.. Ii
'ITEAMBOAT COMPANY, amt., Case No. oz-Cv-sas (CI¤D‘j I --·‘ 8 N
Plaintiffs, I »· .· `
i February 6, 2004 I
:;RIDGE1>0RT PORT AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
. I
MOTION TO COMI>EL
Defendant Bridgeport Port Authority (the "Authority"), pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the . - ,
'ederal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37, respectfully requests the Court enter its -
0 rder compelling Plaintiff Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Company (the "Ferry .
1 ompany") to fully comply with the written discovery requests propounded by the Authority. In
upport thereof, the Authority states as follows: -.
I. The Ferry Company and three individuals claiming to be passengers on the Ferry
¤ perated by the Ferry Company commenced this action alleging that a passenger wharfage fee
i posed by the Authority on passengers riding the Ferry is unlawful under various federal and
tate statutory, common law and constitutional grounds.
2. The Authority seeks an Order from the Court compelling the Ferry Company to
l lly comply with certain interrogatories and requests for production that the Authority
ropounded. The Ferry Company’s objections are misplaced and have no merit. I
3. On August 5, 2003, the Authority served its First Set of Interrogatories and First ,
l' equest for Production of Documents on the Ferry Company. K
259295
l
, m_, I
I ·‘ ·I ` ‘'‘`i“i *“*"*”**"i” i`"i ; `*`""‘*";* ’ I I"‘ CII = _ g g
-I => if I -I i‘‘*·‘ I I¢I¤’I¤iII< ·‘I· > I>IIIII<;i I eee ‘-> -I -- g l l

l Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 43 Filed O2/O9/2004 Page 2 of 4
l
4. On September 19, 2003, the Ferry Company served responses and objections to I
·t ese discovery requests. The Ferry Company’s responses and objections to the Authority’s I
nterrogatories are attached hereto as Exhibit A, and its responses and objections to the
· uthority’s Request for Production are attached hereto as Exhibit B. l
5. The Ferry Company’s answers to lnterrogatories 5, 11, 12 and 20 are inadequate,
. d the objections it asserted have no merit under the relevant rules of civil procedure. The
I erry Company’s responses to Request Nos. 3, ll, 14 and 15 are equally inadequate, and its -
lbj ections to those requests have no merit under the relevant rules of civil procedure. The Ferry
l ompany should be compelled to fully comply with these discovery requests. _
6. The information sought in those discovery requests is relevant to the issues
resented- in this-litigation, and the Authority’s defenses. Complete responses to these discovery
U equests are necessary to effectively proceed with further discovery of this matter, including oral
ti epositions. The Authority has been and will continue to be prejudiced by the Ferry Company’s
ailure to comply with the discovery rules of this Court. - -
7. Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37,
e undersigned counsel for the Authoritylhas made good faith efforts to resolve this discovery
··· ispute, but has been unsuccessful. See Affidavit of E. Sheppard, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Kpecitically, counsel for the Authority sent a letter to counsel for the Ferry Company addressing
rl ese issues. See Letter from Edward]. Sheppard, Esq. to Martin Domb, Esq. dated January 27,
004, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Counsel for the Ferry Company responded to that _
orrespondence, essentially stating that it would stand by its objections. See Letter from Martin
|IOIT1l‘J, Esq. to Edward J. Sheppard, Esq. dated February 3, 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit E.
l
259295 - 2 · R
l

i Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 43 Filed O2/O9/2004 Page 3 of 4 {
8. In further support of its Motion to Compel, the Authority refers the Court to its
emorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Compel, filed contemporaneously herewith and I
i corporated by reference herein.
WHEREFORE Defendant Bridgeport Port Authority respectfully requests the Court enter
i s Order compelling Plaintiff Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Company to fully
spond to the Authority’s First Set of Interrogatories 5,11, 12, 20 and 22, and the Authority’s
. irst Request for Production of Documents Nos. 3, 11, 14, 15 and 27, within seven days of the i
· ate of the Order, and granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper in the
ircumstances. - `
59295 · 3 ·
l
an .sr,s,n5,y l

Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 43 Filed O2/O9/2004 Page 4 of 4
ated: February 6, 2004 I
Respectfully submitted, `
I THOMPSON COBURN LLP I
Edward J. Sheppard, #CT24760 Y
1909 K Street, NW, #600
Washington, DC 20006 `
202-585-6900
Fax 202-585-6969
[email protected] ;
. By
. Suzanne L. gomery, T24761
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
3 14-5 52-6000
Fax 314-552-7000
smontgomery@t11ompsoncobtu·11.com
Attorneys for Defendant Bridgeport Port
Authority
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was
s rved, via electronic mail and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following counsel of record, ·
t is 6th day of February, 2004: i
J nathan S. Bowman Frank H. Loomis
tewart I. Edelstein Martin Domb
ohen and Wolf, P.C. Hill, Betts & Nash LLP
1115 Broad Street One World Financial Center
.0. Box 1821 200 Liberty Street, 26th Floor I
ridgeport, CT 06601-1821 New York, New York 10281
C 6
l
2 59295 - 4 - I