Free Motion for Joinder - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 598.6 kB
Pages: 4
Date: May 11, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 952 Words, 5,093 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9982/123-2.pdf

Download Motion for Joinder - District Court of Connecticut ( 598.6 kB)


Preview Motion for Joinder - District Court of Connecticut
I ‘ Case 3:00-cv-01477-EBB Document 123-2 Filed 05/12/2004 Page 1 014
Q lil
qa Y ` I
iQ` in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W
QU ph DISTRICT OE CONNECTICUT p
sk VOLUME II f
ji ,&,¥>“ V_1· igéipf J
rg MICHAEL GARGANO AND ANDREA : U
Y GARGANO, : I
Il Plaintiffs, : I
QN v. ; CIVIL ACTION NO.: f
p H ; 3:00cvI477 (WWE) {
EQ METRO-NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD : J
il coMpANY, ; {
, Defendants/ ; l
§ Third—Party,Plaintiffs,; R
V . : Q
E I : Y
li DUCCI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, : I
`ZL INC . , :
V3i Tbird—Party Defendant. :
Y ‘‘‘‘‘eee‘“‘‘‘‘‘ X
ii ` l
}§? Continued deposition of RICHARD DeCHELLO,
=i I
lsw taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Q
I Il
,73i Procedure, before Melissa J. Kelly, RPR, CRR, M
I ea ”
‘ l l
CSW Licensed Shorthand Reporter #00307, and Notary Q
S9; Public within and for the State of Connecticut, Q
Ii
_ QOL heQd at Union Station, 50 Union Avenue, [email protected] Haven,
ill Connecticut, on April I5, 2004, at I0:lI @.m. l
` ` i l
I G , II
_ 4. A lf
·~ 1
3 F L
{ I ` ., V . -_ .. . x I ` _ ,7 , , U V _A ) ` i
me .. risc I
j!§ Q I il? @@5WE E E ,
’`·‘' 5 I I. QR H®%%? l
P aI §&%@¥§@? [email protected]@ QQEQQEQB @®§[email protected]§@ Y
X V V V V V V V V V T e` I, 4 *** 7 " I f"" ' ’ 17 -·· I —~
` l
' M I I I » I I ii. - _-i...iii--. . I

Case 3:00-cv-01477-EBB Document 123-2 Filed 05/12/2004 Page£2q¤%f 4
IQ _ don’t exist, that's fine. But welre not L
“ Qi: going to tolerate any late disclos ge of J
3Q these documents beyond today because the§e's L
` `
4} been more than enough time to get this l
Sw information, and my comments are directed gs N
f I
Gi Metro—North specifically, not to [email protected]@ody else w
7I in particular. M
8 MR. KANE: Well, just note for the M
9 record that we had been attempting to locate 5
I0 these documents and are still attempting to Q
ll? locate these documents based upon prior i
l2i testimony. And we will in fact respond to
I3i the interrogatories, either advising that
léw they do not exist or providing whatever it is i
ISM we are able to locate if and when we do
I6 locate the documents as we continue to make I
l7i that search. We'll make every effort to
ISQ locate those documents as quickly as B
1 \
l9i possible, although at this point we‘ve besg E
20U unable to do so. i
"
2I MR. CROTTA: From the perspective of
22 Ducci, the thirdeparty defendant, the U
23 document that's perhaps even more cggtical
E$p than might otherwise be to the plaig§iff in
C QS? this case is a document that was [email protected] at
“” S ll
lf) DEL VECCHIO REPORTING SERVICES, LL§ d-|
L,.;.... All I i....i t r.e,..¤..........t..L,i.

Case 3:00-cv-01477-EBB Document 123-2 Filed 05/12/2004 Fgage le ` lll l ll l
IM length at the depositions of Mr. Gillies in M
,I *
I 2E January of 2003. It was again referred to by M
EN Mr. Prentice earlier or rather later in [email protected]§. V
w; ‘
qw It is new yet again being relied u mn by l
sj Metro—North witnesses, and it has been H
6l requested on the record at those depositions, U
7 those prior depositions. It was requested m
S again by me today on the record. j
9 To continue to proceed with this caee l
I0 without producing that document through
lll counsel, as it has been requested to have
l2l been done, is exceptionally prejudicial to
13m the ability to defend the claim of the case
%§ Isl as it relates to anything that may be obliged l
ISQ to have been done by Metro—North under l
l6% MN~290, and I will take up appropriate relief j
17j with the court in due course. l
H I
IS? Among the items that I will now pursue S

IQ, with the court is an order precluding the 5
20 production of this document at this point {
21 since, as I understand it, the court is I
22 cutting off discovery, and it leaves me in j
23 absolutely no position at this point to J
rl
24t address this issue. So it's prejudicial to E
kh 25% my client. It's been requested. It should E
. i ’
lL,eel;¤—ere:#li;: a a; .;=e»ee=; ~ee~e=—e. l..- . .lle,¢¤s-es;;~s—l-·esell.s
DEL VECCHIO REPORTING SERVICES, LLC

Case 3:00-cv-01477-EBB Document 123-2 Filed 05/12/2004 Page24 gf 4
.1%
Y 2;..2- ~ . i .2 ....,. ;.; *2 . .. ' " V ` NI "
1 1
1 have been produced. It hasn't been, and I 1
I 2 intend to move to preclude it amé we'll [email protected] 1
1.
3 to proceed on that basis. We'll have to sée 1
1
4 where we go from there. 1
l l
5 I think we should also, subject to 1
61 whatever ruling the court makes on this 1
11
7% sub ect, reserve our right to call back an
U J Y
Bw of the witnesses who have in any Qhspe or
H
`
91 form relied upon this for their testimony in
'
101 the event that we need to take depositions
1l .
11h again or bring them back to inquire about it M
1 1
!' l
12A if it is in fact permitted to be produced.
1 1 *
131 (whereupon the proceedings concluded at Q
to . W
141 12:51 p.m.) A
1 1
1. W
l51 1
‘ 1
1 I!
1 6 1 1
1* `
1 7
18 1
1
l 9 11
1
201 1
L `
211 1
2 2 1
2 3 g l ,1
1
2 4 I 1
kw 2 5 }
V 1, "
1* 1
DEL VECCHIO REPORTING SERVICES, LLC i