Free Letter - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

t Case 3:03-cv-01007-JCH Document 24 Filed 10/20/200% jlaqd d?§f')i§;g.,·
LAW orrlcias __ fi I
FACSIMILE (860) 246-9699 K E R N AND W O O L E Y LLP CALIFORNIA I
280 rnuwlsuu. symspw 2, U U ,.,: 7 3 TEXAS I
Hrxnrroao, ct 06103 I U oeoncm I
(660) 246-9700 .
·
October 9, 2003 I
neat -
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY gl :,,3 I
Iv"' is; 5,*,9 I
The Honorable Janet C. Hall Q {*9 E
United States District Court, “.1`iZ(;I; * TTI I
District of Connecticut D
915 Lafayette Blvd. JU
Bridgeport, CT 06604 ig? Ty CD 1
ti? za
3 I
Re: United Technologies v. Parker Hannyin Corp.
Docket No. 303 CB1 007 (JCID I
I
Dear Judge Hall: I
This office represents the defendant, Parker Hannifin Corporation, in connection
with the above-referenced matter. Please note that this correspondence was necessitated I
by plaintiff s counsel’s October 3, 2003, letter to Your Honor. It is also provided in I
anticipation ofthe Rule 16 Conference now scheduled for October 15, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. 3
As a preliminary concern, we consider it inappropriate for plaintiffs counsel to
have raised to the Court a number of points and "facts" addressed in his letter regarding
private ADR. While our primary purpose here is to clarify misstatements and I
inaccuracies by plaintiff s counsel, we must go on record that we object to this I
communication and view it as an improper attempt to skew the Court’s thinking on
matters not currently before it. We categorically disagree with this approach. There has
been no factual or legal determination of the respective rights and obligations of the
patties under private ADR, and until private ADR is before the Court in the context of
this litigation, we object to the plaintiffs comments and arguments regarding it.
Moreover, the only substantive proceeding scheduled is oral argument on the
defendant’s Motion to Implead, set for October 15, 2003. Both sides have briefed the
issues relative to this motion, and private ADR and other items discussed in plaintiffs
counsel’s letter are unrelated to the motion. I
I
I



` Case 3:03-cv-01007-JCH Document 24 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 2 of 3
l
The Honorable Janet C. Hall i
October 9, 2003
Page Two l
We consider plaintiffs counsel’s recitation of the "ADR process" an eff`ort to cast
the defendant in a poor light and to deflect those issues germane to this litigation.
Moreover, plaintiff s counsel’s comments regarding private ADR, as well as our client’s
willingness to mediate (before this Court or otherwise), are plainly incorrect, and we are
forced to clarify the record in this regard.
The plaintiff is well aware that our client has repeatedly requested, and has been l
repeatedly denied, information in its possession and control regarding the roles ofthe l
Republic of Korea ("ROKAF") and Samsung Aerospace, entities intimately involved in,
among other relevant activities, the assembly and installation of the aircraft engines in {
the Korean fighter jests that crashed in 1997. Plaintiffs counsel is also well aware that E
ROKAF and/or Samsung Aerospace denied our client access to such information during
investigations after the 1997 mishaps. We have emphasized to the plaintiff that Parker l
Hanniiin Corporation cannot be expected to agree to resolution of a multi-million dollar
claim without being afforded fair and unimpeded access to relevant information
regarding liability and causation. It would, therefore, be imprudent to agree to early
mediation with this Court until we can discover information in that regard.
Further, the defendant has not been dilatoiy or uncooperative with respect to
private ADR, as suggested by plaintiff’s counsel. However, by filing the federal action,
the plaintiff has forced the defendant to defend on two fronts, and if plaintiffs counsel is
correct that there is "a substantial overlap between these [ADR] claims and the claims in
the present case,” the plaintiffs right to pursue a parallel court act·ion is called into
serious question. In fact, we have been analyzing this very issue, and have endeavored ,
not to take steps the plaintiff may attempt to characterize as a waiver by the defendant of l
the right to challenge the plaintiff s concomitant pursuit of private ADR. t
Notwithstanding this point, it has been just over thirty days since plaintiff" s counsel’s
first letter regarding selection of a mediator for private ADR. Moreover, if plaintiff s
counsel wanted to ensure a speedy reply to his letters of September 5 and September 7,
2003 (regarding selection of mediators in the ADR), he could have copied or directed
these letters to the defendant’s local counsel of record (the undersigned), which was not
done, instead of directing them to defendant’s counsel from California, who cannot be l
expected to agree to Connecticut mediators posited by plaintiff s counsel. See Exhibits
A and B to plaintiffs 10/3/03 letter.
Finally, the defendant is committed to a timely resolution of this matter. In that
regard, the defendant would certainly consider early Court mediation if the plaintiff were
to agree to cooperate with the defendant in disclosing all information in its possession
l
I
l
n

` Case 3:03-cv-01007-JCH Document 24 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 3 of 3
l
The Honorable Janet C. Hall
October 9, 2003 l
Page Three
l
and control, and to assist in obtaining such information from those entities. We will ask i
for the Court’s help in this regard on October 15.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours, 3
l
l
rk R. Giuliani i
MRG/au l
cc: All counsel of record l
James Baker, Esq.
P?lS!ra!0fIex — UTClC0rresp0ndenceUudge Hal! IO-8-03.wpd i
i
i
i
l
l
l

I
l
l
i
l