Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cv—O1612—RNC Document 31 Filed 12/O4/2OO@2Cli’Ja1@p)_0f»6~t(p\QC,y,rtO . li
` O O r
l l
I ` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ‘ P " `'`
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, ,- U.,_ _ .
all} lin, —· it l—l> gg; 3 q
STEPHEN GOLD, : NO. 3:02CV-tot; (RNC) __v _
plaintwf 3 ire lil: Li Lg tj ij _§ _ LS T i
I li.-*?~.t< I E· 0Hl} Ut" ,
V. :
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC I
SAFETY, et al., :
defendants. : DECEMBER 3, 2003
MOTION TO COMPEL
COOPERATION IN DISCOVERY _
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 37(a)(2)(B) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, i
the defendants respectfully request that this court order the plaintiff to cooperate in discovery by
making himself available for a deposition, or to suffer the dismissal of this lawsuit. In support of I
this motion, the defendants represents as follows: .
l. On December 31, 2002, the defendants sent a Notice of Deposition to the plaintiff i
l
through his counsel, Attorney Robert S. Kolesnik. Prior to February 27, 2003, the scheduled i
date ofthe deposition, Attorney Kolesnik contacted counsel for the defendants and asked that the I
deposition of his client be postponed. Counsel agreed. A copy of the Notice of Deposition is 2
attached at Tab A.
2. On August 4, 2003, the defendants sent a Re—notice of Deposition to the plaintiff
l
through his counsel, Attorney Robert S. Kolesnik. Prior to August 28, 2003, the scheduled date
s
of the deposition, Attorney Kolesnik contacted counsel for the defendants and asked that the
_ deposition of his client be postponed. Counsel agreed. A copy of the Notice of Deposition is _
attached at Tab B.
l
1
M ` "`T`T—w—w—~—~ "`Q?-NCS`- _ ti- __ __ gg __ g

l . .· Case 3:02-cv-01612- NC Document 31 Filed 12/O4/2003 Page 2 of 4
i · di O l
l l
l 3. On October 1, 2003, the defendants sent a Second Re—notice of Deposition to the l
{ plaintiff through his counsel, Attorney Robert S. Kolesnik. Prior to November 14, 2003, the J
scheduled date of the deposition, Attorney Kolesnik again contacted counsel for the defendants
and asked that the deposition of his client be postponed. Counsel agreed. A copy of the Notice
of Deposition is attached at Tab C. i
4. On November 17, 2003, counsel for the defendants corresponded with Attorney
Kolesnik asking that he provide dates upon which it would be possible to depose his client. I
Attorney Kolesnik telephoned counsel for the defendants in response to this letter, and promised {
to consult his client who had since moved to South Dakota. i
5. To date, counsel for the defendants has received no written reply to his K
‘ correspondence, nor has plaintiff’ s counsel provided the requested dates upon which the plaintiff
could be deposed.
6. There is currently pending a second Motion To Compel Cooperation In Discovery l
arising out of the plaintiffs continuing failure to provide responses to the Defendants’ i
Interrogatories And Requests For Production dated October 29, 2002. l
7. The deposition of the plaintiff is crucial to the defendants' ability to prepare their case A
and to present an effective defense against the plaintiffs’ allegations of wrongdoing on their part. `
Absent the requested deposition, the defendants ability to investigate the allegations of
wrongdoing proffered, prepare for the deposition ofthe plaintiftQ to cross-examine the plaintifi
and to present appropriate witnesses during the course of the trial will be severely prejudiced.
l l WHEREFORE, the defendants requests that the plaintiff be ordered-to immediately l l Q
comply with the rules of discovery by making himself available for his deposition or suffer the
2
.___... l

| -_—;_-H—•_|
l . .· Case 3:02-cv—O1612?3I}1C Document 31 Filed 12/O4/2003 Page 3 of 4
l ‘ X _aaa O ,
l l
1 dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice. In addition, the defendant requests that his expenses in
the making of this motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, be allowed in accordance with
i Rule 37(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the amount oi`$ 306.80 in
accordance with the Bill of Costs and Request for Attorney's Fees attached hereto at Tab E, and
counsel’s Affidavit and Certification of Good Faith attached hereto at Tab F.
.- · . DEFENDANTS ·
State of Connecticut, Department of Public l
Safety, Kenneth Dillon, John Covello, Adam ?
Wagnblas and Arthur Walkley {
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL ;
.,, _ __ l
BY: J
Stephen . arnoski ·
Assistant Attorney General `
MacKenzie Hall .
. 110 Sherman Street i
Hartford, CT 06105
Tel. (860) 808-5450
Federal Bar #ct05129
E-mail: [email protected]
. 1
l
l
l

I _ I ,- Case 3:02-cv—O1612—B_l;lC Document 31 Filed 12/O4{2003 Page 4 of 4 l
l ‘ Cy O
l i
l
i CERTIFICATION
!
I I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, first-class, postage
a prepaid, to the following on this the Bd day of _, E :
I Robert S. Kolesnik, Esq. I
Kolesnik & Norris =
l 80 Central Avenue i
Waterbury, Connecticut 06702 l
Steph R. Sarnoski l
Assistant Attorney General
l
l
l