Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 63.6 kB
Pages: 1
Date: March 12, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 385 Words, 2,399 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/19572/51.pdf

Download Order - District Court of Connecticut ( 63.6 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of Connecticut

g J Case 3:02 v-O1 62S[JC}l-1 Q1 F11?} ,0§¢109@@Q9;·+Pa99 1 O1 1
1 I n 1 X -- Oi$ff¤¢+ ts} C¤»1A·¤~’¤·1·<‘.¢»7z {mor
A C N . 30 C
1 {gg I asc 0 2 CV 1629 JCH 5
1 MOVE T0 DISMISS THE CASE BECAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
1 COMPLY WITH COURT DISCOVERY ORDER.
1 Emile Boyle (Respondent/Defendant) I
83 54 Forrester Blvd
1 1§§pringiield VA 22152 § 'é
· KA [email protected] ;_ Q ft -1-1 1
AKA liveried cz: an g ___ 1
- Bi M I" 1
1 L ick Mattleson (Petitioner/Plaintiff) 1 ‘J [T] ’
Tremont Street I 2 C, `U U 1
1 Q artford, Connecticut ,;—·, {-22 ty.; I
1 06105-3069 *1 ca 1
1 [email protected] "" 1
A § 1 AKA dmasa 1
1 Mattleson vs Boyle 1
1 1 mile Boyle, request that the court dismiss the pIaintiff's case for-hisfailure to comply with
§ _ 'strate Judge Holly B. F itzsimmons Feb S"', 2004 discovery order [doc # 38] directing the 1
X \ f
\ \ plaintiff to disclose his 1999, 2000, and 2001 tax returns to the defendant. The plaintiff has done 1
-
® .,,_ \ 1
\ "\_\ all he could to waste the time of the court and the defendant by giving verbal assurances that he 1
S i
` \ woqlg provide these records several times during settlement conference calls and during a
\ settlb'1nen§§eting at the U.S. District court with Judge Fitzsimmons and the defendant in
. s °-"‘€ 1
i Q *1 ` attendancE§fter nearly three months of waiting, the plaintiff still failed to provide these records
7
_; T E2 ·
Etc tlgdef§§nt. This iinally led to the issuance of the discovery order on Feb Sth, with which
_" the éintiggill made no attempt to comply, preferring instead to argue with the honorable
Q Judge Fitzsimmons and Mr. Boyle that, despite the order, he was not required to do as directed. I 1
\1L consider these records to be extremely important in this case to support or refute the plaintiffs 1
c im of loss income, to establish the legitimacy of the plaintiff s business and records thru his
n federal tax compliance, and to compare against other evidence which the plaintiff has submitted
°§ g " 1
i*¥¤i?-*#;?e;-;.;:;. 1; ég; ;;;_i___:;;_ 1; i__?i_F_i?i-?_r;r;;-i 7 7 -7- i; { J i J
i·?rj?*'?;if'?’?'·?;;';1r€;T;;;`.2`r·§;, T2 '?r‘?-'?L'7.'?Sr:.'lr` ' · "· '* " " T' "'