Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I
Case 3:02-cv-O1C5)4-CFD Document 41 Filed 1(iLC51/2003 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F ,_li__
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT #`*‘ * fi FII
‘ "r·• L.,I;I,_, IIE,.}
I MICHAEL W. KENNEDY gag;} I _ I
E .»`.It __) ,"'.\_ I: j?
. Plaintiff, ILL`; .· I I I . I , __ I
I I I I-‘ Iii '.'`-I' IC IMI
I °"\ ]i_,II‘ILI-j
I V. CIVIL ACTION NO.
I 3:02CV1754 (CFD)
I BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES, N.A. _
I
I Defendant. OCTOBER 30, -2003
I
SUR REPLY TO DEFENDANT’ S OBJECTION TO
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO AMEND PLANNING REPORT
I
E The defendant with consent on April 21, 2003 filed the first extension of time to
enlarge the discovery period awaiting the ruling on defendant’ s motion to dismiss
plaintiff s complaint. The undersigned and Attorney Cohen agreed that it would be cost
I effective to postpone the deposition of defendant BMW Financial Service until such time
I as the court ruled on the motion to dismiss.
The undersigned previously represented to defendant’ s counsel that he would
I
I travel to Ohio to take the deposition(s) as required under the Rule 30 (b) (1) of the Fed. R.
I Civ. P. (the deposition of a corporation occurs at its principal place of business) see
I
I Custom Form Mfg., Inc. v. Omron Corp., 196 F.R.D. 333, 336 (ND. Ind. 2000). The
I undersigned was surprised that Attorney Cohen does not remember the agreement he
I entered into.
I
I The Court ruled on defendant’ s motion to dismiss in October 2003. The Truth in
!
I Lending violation and CUTPA were denied and the violation of the Motor Vehicle
I

I T`““&—~- JD-; 5 .___

-~—&&&_ .-.`?`LZ ` I gg .-- .--. A .


I Case 3:02-cv-0164-CFD Document 41 Filed 1%%/2003 Page 2 of 3
I Information and Cost Saving Act was granted. Thereafter, defendant filed an answer and
I counterclaim type dated October 14, 2003.
I Defendant will not be prejudiced by the additional time requested to take the
I
I deposition of its emp1oyee(s) as plaintiff must be provided time to respond to the
I counterclaim and do discovery since defendant has waited over one year to bring the
g counterclaim. The counterclaim caught plaintiff by surprise and to deny plaintiff his right

I to discover the basis of the counterclaim when defendant states it intends to file summary
judgment motion within two weeks will prejudice plaintiff, be an ambush, breach the
I
I agreement between the parties and deny plaintiff his right to conduct discovery on the I
counterclaim. I
I WHEREF ORE, plaintiff requests that his motion to amend the planning report be
I
? granted in all parts. I
_ I
I THE PLAINTIFF/ I
I , A- // -.'__..»"'/JJ I
BY
ernard T. Kennedy
I 49 Rose Street, #301 I
i Branford, CT 06405 I
I (203) 481-1322
I Fed. Bar # ct00680
I
I
I
I
I


I Case 3:02-cv-O1{15\4-CFD Document 41 Filed 19%1 /2003 Page 3 of 3
i —· < - · \____,i lkml- _
I
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
I This is to certify that on this date, via U.S. Mail, a copy of the foregoing was
N mailed postage prepaid to :
Adam J. Cohen, Esq.
I Sheila A. Denton, Esq.
Pullman & Comley
Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006}
I
- -·-- —-r·*‘“"'77¤-,¤/"'II-PII-To
Bernard T. Kennedy
I