Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

_ _ Case 3:03-cv-OO5S&§5JBA Document 43 Filed 12/1 €[§OO3 Page 1 of 3 N
I
irii;§£;Eié§I;é3%‘ "* N
UNtiéiiiéiiéié’é)SJ§‘é‘éi.‘éB¥RT
TOM JAM ES COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION NO. I
: 303 CV 0596 (JBA) `
PI aintiff, : N
v. Z
TRACE A PAREL LLC and N
J. TRACY SREEN, :
D fendants. DECEMBER 18, 2003
I
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS J. FINN IN SUPPORT OF N
LAINTlFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
I, Thomas J. Finn, do hereby swear and affirm as follows:
1. I am an attorney with the law firm of I·IaIIoran & Sage LLP, attorneys for the N
plaintiff, Ton James Company ("Tom James"), inthe above-captioned matter. I make N
this affidavit in connection with Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Electronic Discovery, dated
December 18, 2003 (“Motion"). I
2. Tom James served requests for production on the defendants, Trace
Apparel LL 3 ("Trace Apparel") and J. Tracy Green ("Mr. Green") (collectively referred to
as "Defend ants") on or about August 13, 2003. Defendants provided objections and
responses zo these Production Requests on or about September 12, 2003.
I
I
$;:S.;ii.i‘;.?2;‘r HALLORIN Iisisiiiiiiszw N
I·IuI‘tf01’d, CT 06l 3 & [,iN,,NP Juris N0_ 26]05 N
. I

I . · Case 3:03-cv-O05?6—)lBA Document 43 Filed 12/1 (3/SOO3 Page 2 of 3
I I
W
3. On or about November 7, 2003, in response to Tom James' Production
Requests, efendants produced documents comprising of some customer lists, a few
months of cellular telephone logs, sales invoices and receipts, and Defendants’ profit I
and loss st tements for 2002 and for 2003 from January through May. This production I
was incom olete and failed to address the majority of the requests propounded. No
emails or ther evidence of communications between Defendants and third-parties were ,
produced.
4. In a telephone conference on November 7, 2003, regarding Defendants’
production of documents, Defendants’ counsel represented to me that emails were not l
produced y Defendants because they had either been deleted from Defendants’ I
computer systems or they were not relevant to the instant matter. Defendants’ counsel I
further rep esented that no attempt was made to recover these deleted emails to
determine heir potential relevance or responsiveness to Tom James’ requests for I
production. _
5. In light of Defendants’ incomplete production, counsel for the parties I
participate in numerous telephone conferences in order to attempt to obtain additional
production from Defendants.
6. In a telephone conference on December 14, 2003, Defendants’ counsel
affirmatlvel r represented that no measures had been taken to preserve potentially l
relevant inf nrmation or to otherwise preserve the electronic data present on Defendants’ I
computer s stems. E
- 2 - :
;’;::i.;rt.r‘2,?2.:‘*‘° HALLORAN rr rrrr I
1·rarrr¤m,c1`0610s Sy; SAGE LL]P )2f;?;g0U6 E
E

' I
\ · ·° Case 3:03-cv-O05?6»IjBA Document 43 Filed 12/1(8%§003 Page 3 of 3 I
I ._ }/I \.,.. I
7. I have attempted in good faith to secure additional production from I
Defendants without the Courts intervention. Counsel for Defendants and I have
conferred >y telephone on numerous occasions in an attempt to resolve issues with I
respect to .he incomplete document production by Defendants. l
8. Defendants have refused, and continue to refuse, Tom James’ access to i
Defendant s' computer systems and electronic data. I
homas J. glnn · I
Sig ed and sworn to before me on this 18th day of December, 2003. N
Commissioner of the Superior Court
495202
I
I
I

- 3 ....
;>;;;¤I>¤lwl; Sqv ¤rr= HALLORAN Phono (860) $22-6102
um trcc mx - 6
HI.a3’I.e~ 061 I & SAGE in I....I.I?.£T)256‘I%?°" I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
i I
I I
I