Preview
DOCKET NO.: WWM-CV21-6022016-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC d/b/a : J.D. OF WINDHAM
CENTRAL HYUNDAI :
:
VS. : AT PUTNAM
:
BRENT MATTSON : SEPTEMBER 16, 2022
SECOND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE
The defendant, Brent Mattson, submits this second memorandum in support of his
Motion for Order of Compliance, dated March 31, 2022 (121.00) (“Defendant’s Motion”).
In that motion, Mr. Mattson detailed the numerous, significant deficiencies in the plaintiff’s
responses to Mr. Mattson’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents Directed to Plaintiff, dated September 21, 2021 (“Discovery Request”).
On July 29, 2022, Mr. Mattson submitted an initial memorandum (“First
Memorandum in Support”) (132.00), in support of the Defendant’s Motion. The purpose
of the present, second, memorandum is to reply to the plaintiff’s most recent purported
response to the Discovery Request, explain why that response is unacceptable, and ask
the court to bring the hammer down. Specifically, the defendant requests an order that
this case be dismissed with prejudice, and that the plaintiff be required to pay the
defendant’s entire legal expense associated with the Defendant’s Motion and related
communications.
The court (Lohr, J.) heard the Defendant’s Motion at a remote oral argument
conducted on August 15, 2022. The court thereupon issued an order (121.20) compelling
the plaintiff, within 30 days, to “comply with the requests as stated in the 4 bullet points on
page 12 [sic: page 5] of the Memorandum in Support filed at docket entry #132.”
On September 14, 2022, counsel for the plaintiff filed a Notice of Compliance, and
at that time served upon the undersigned a copy of the same, together with an 11-page
document consisting of (i) a 3-page “Plaintiff’s Responses to the Defendant’s Four Bullet
Points Per Court Order dated August 15, 2022,” and (ii) eight (8) pages of the plaintiff’s
business records (the “September Response”). A copy of the September Response, redacted
by this firm to conceal financial data that the plaintiff may claim is sensitive and proprietary,
is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
The plaintiff’s September Response is still completely unacceptable.
Accordingly, the defendant requests an order of sanctions – including the ultimate
sanction, dismissal of this case, which is richly deserved here.
I. Background: the plaintiff’s Revised Complaint.
In its Revised Complaint, which is dated September 26, 2021 (108.00)
(“Complaint”), the plaintiff, Ironhorse Auto, LLC d/b/a Central Hyundai, alleges in
relevant part as follows.
The plaintiff is a dealer of Hyundai automobiles, and is situated in Plainfield,
Connecticut. (Complaint, all counts, ¶ 1.) Mr. Mattson was an employee of the plaintiff,
2
as its Service Manager, commencing in or about August of 2019. (Id., ¶ 9.) In that
capacity, Mr. Mattson had limited access to the plaintiff’s computerized Dealer
Management System (“DMS”). (Id.) That system “contains all customer and financial
information, including detailed customer information, employee information, details
about the dealership’s new and used car inventories, the dealership’s parts inventory, the
dealership’s service transactions, and the dealership’s finances.” (Id., ¶ 10.)
On March 9, 2021, Mr. Mattson resigned his employment from the plaintiff,
effective that day. (Complaint, all counts, ¶ 13-15.) The plaintiff thereupon terminated
Mr. Mattson’s access to its DMS and company email. (Id., ¶ 16.) Mr. Mattson
immediately commenced employment with Wile Hyundai, of Columbia, Connecticut (id.,
¶ 17), a company that the plaintiff characterizes as its “direct competitor.” (Id., ¶ 3.)
The plaintiff further alleges that on March 12, 2021, after Mr. Mattson had begun
working at Wile Hyundai, he engaged in a communication with Hyundai Motor America
(the maker and distributor of Hyundai vehicles in North America; Complaint ¶ 5), in
which he misrepresented himself as a current employee of the plaintiff, and requested
administrator rights and access to the plaintiff’s DMS. (Complaint, all counts, ¶ 18.)
Hyundai North America, in turn, violated its own protocols and granted Mr. Mattson that
access. (Id., ¶ 19.) The plaintiff further alleges that from then until April 2, 2021, Mr.
Mattson “engaged in the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s DMS System” and “used his
unauthorized access to view data belonging to the Plaintiff, which data was resident on
3
the Plaintiff’s DMS computer network.” (Id., ¶ 22.) With some supplemental
allegations, the plaintiff asserts claims based on various legal theories.
Significantly, and of great importance to this motion, the plaintiff alleged, and
continues to allege, that as a result of purported misconduct on the part of Mr. Mattson,
“numerous customers ceased doing business with the plaintiff.” (Complaint, Count
Seven, ¶ 45; emphasis added.)
Mr. Mattson unequivocally denies the plaintiff’s allegations of wrongdoing on his
part. (Answer, Special Defenses and Counterclaim, dated February 16, 2022, 119.00.)
II. The Discovery Request; the continuing, blatant inadequacy of the plaintiff’s
response.
Here is the relevant procedural sequence of events:
• September 21, 2021: the undersigned counsel for the defendant serves the
Discovery Request. The compliance deadline is November 20, 2021.
• November 18, 2021: the plaintiff files a motion (114.00) seeking to extend its
compliance deadline to December 20, 2021. That motion is granted (114.10).
• December 13, 2021: the plaintiff files a motion (115.00) seeking to further extend
its compliance deadline to January 18, 2022. That motion is granted (115.10).
• January 18, 2022: the plaintiff serves the first version of its discovery response.
4
• February 1, 2022: the undersigned counsel for Mr. Mattson emails a 19-page
letter to plaintiff’s counsel cataloguing the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s discovery
response.
• February 28, 2022: counsel conduct a telephonic meet-and-confer. Plaintiff’s
counsel promises a redo of the discovery response.
• March 14, 2022: email follow-up by the undersigned, regarding status of the
amended discovery response. No response.
• March 31, 2022: the undersigned files and serves the Defendant’s Motion.
• April 25, 2022: counsel for the plaintiff serves an Amended Discovery Response,
and files notice of the same (127.00), which is docketed the following day.
• The next day, April 26, 2022, the undersigned sends an email to counsel for the
plaintiff, pointing out the continuing deficiencies in the plaintiff’s response. (First
Memorandum in Support, pp. 4-5.) A key issue was the plaintiff had alleged the
loss of “numerous customers,” but had identified only one (1), A&B
Transportation, in its Amended Discovery Response. (Id.)
o Those persisting deficiencies were summarized in the following four (4)
bullet points:
Identity of the allegedly lost customers.
Production of the files for those lost customers.
Explanation of the “money and/or property” that the defendant
supposedly took.
5
Calculation of the plaintiff’s alleged damages. (Id. p. 5.)
• August 15, 2022: argument of the Defendant’s Motion; the court issues its order
compelling the plaintiff to address the four (4) bullet points.
• September 14, 2022: the plaintiff serves the September Response.
Thanks to the September Response, which was provided fifty-one (51) weeks
after service of the Discovery Request, we now have confirmation that this case is
premised on literally nothing.
The plaintiff’s response to bullet point #1, “identity of the allegedly lost
customers,” is as follows:
“The plaintiff lost A & B Transportation as a customer.”
One. One “lost” customer. Here we are, some sixteen (16) months into the case,
with the plaintiff still alleging the loss of “numerous” customers, and now we learn that
“numerous” does not mean “numerous.” It means “one.”
But wait – it gets better (or worse). To address bullet point #2, the plaintiff
produced its customer file for A&B Transportation, the allegedly “lost” customer
(including transaction information about Joshua Brown, who is the “B” in “A&B.”)
(September Response, attached hereto.) From those documents, we see numerous
transactions between the plaintiff and A&B/Mr. Brown since Mr. Mattson left the
company on or about March 9, 2021. This includes the following:
• A vehicle purchase on November 19, 2021;
6
• Another vehicle purchase, just eight (8) weeks ago, on July 19, 2022;
• Six (6) service appointments in the name of A&B’s principal, Mr. Brown,
between July of 2021 and August 31, 2022 (two weeks ago); and
• Almost two dozen service appointments in the name of A&B, between April of
2021 (weeks after Mr. Mattson left the plaintiff’s employ) and, again, August 31,
2022.
So, let us be clear about the sophistry that the plaintiff has perpetrated here.
According to the plaintiff, “numerous” means “one,” and “lost customer” (or as alleged
in the Complaint, customer who has “ceased doing business with the plaintiff”) means
“customer with whom we regularly transact business.” Channeling Humpty Dumpty,
apparently when the plaintiff uses a word, “it means just what [the plaintiff] choose[s] it
to mean – neither more nor less.” 1
We further note that at bullet point #4, the plaintiff was required to provide “a
calculation of the Plaintiff’s alleged damages.” The predicate for that bullet point was
interrogatory #12 of the Discovery Request (as noted in the First Memorandum in
Support, at page 6), demanding that the plaintiff “state the dollar amount of [your]
damage, and provide a detailed explanation of the methodology that you used for the
1
Carroll, L, “Through the Looking Glass” (1871), Ch. VI. To which Alice questioned
“whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Id. To which we would
reply, “not in a court of law, you can’t.”
7
calculation.” (Emphasis added.) Par for the course, the plaintiff replied just the way it
felt like replying, stating one dollar amount for “lost gross profit on parts and service,”
another dollar amount for “lost gross profit on sales” – and providing not a hint of how
those numbers were arrived at.
Enough, already.
IV. Law and Argument.
We note again that under section 13-14 of the Practice Book, the court may
impose sanctions against a party who “has failed to answer interrogatories or to answer
them fairly.” (Emphasis added.) It cannot be seriously disputed that in the present case,
the plaintiff has failed to answer the defendant’s interrogatories “fairly.” Rather, the
plaintiff has dragged out the discovery process endlessly, providing evasive and
misleading replies. Only now, after considerable legal work and expense on the part of
the defendant, has the plaintiff come clean, sort of, and effectively acknowledged that it
has no case. The plaintiff’s conduct has been, in a word, outrageous.
At subpart (b), rule 13-14 provides a menu of sanction options:
(1) The entry of a nonsuit or default against the party failing to comply;
(2) The award to the discovering party of the costs of the motion, including a
reasonable attorney’s fee;
(3) The entry of an order that the matters regarding which the discovery was
sought or other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes
of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
8
(4) The entry of an order prohibiting the party who has failed to comply from
introducing designated matters in evidence;
(5) If the party failing to comply is the plaintiff, the entry of a judgment of
dismissal.
Id.
To this point, the defendant has been quite measured in his request for sanctions.
Not anymore. The defendant now seeks a sanction that will put this entire charade to an
end.
We note that here, the issue is not simply a matter of procedural impropriety,
egregious as it has been. The end product of this torturous process has been the
plaintiff’s tacit admission, finally, that it has no case. The time is nigh for the court to
make that official. And as noted, the defendant seeks indemnity for his legal fees, in an
amount to be determined at a future hearing.
DEFENDANT,
BRENT MATTSON
By 403444
William J. O’Sullivan
O’Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC
180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 210
Glastonbury, CT 06033
Phone: (860) 258-1993
Fax: (860) 258-1991
wosullivan@omjblaw.com
Juris # 407344
His Attorneys
9
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on September 16, 2022, a copy of the above was or will
immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically to all counsel and
self-represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was
received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were or will
immediately be electronically served.
Service list:
John Wolfson, Esq.
Feiner Wolfson LLC
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
jwolfson@feinerwolfson.com
403444
William J. O’Sullivan
10
EXHIBIT 1
DOCKET NO.: WWM-CV21-6022016-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC d/b/a : J.D. OF WINDHAM
CENTRAL HYUNDAI :
:
VS. : AT PUTNAM
:
BRENT MATTSON : SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO THE
DEFENDANT’S FOUR BULLET POINTS
PER COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST 15, 2022
Pursuant to the Court’s (Lohr, J.) Order dated August 15, 2022, requiring the Plaintiff to
fully respond to the Four (4) categories or “bullet points” on Page 5 (not 12) ofthe Defendant’s
Memorandum, the Plaintiff states as follows:
I. The Identity ofany allegedly lost customers.
RESPONSE: The Plaintifflost A & B Transportation as a customer.
II. The files forthose lost customers.
RESPONSE: The files for A & B Transportation are enclosed herewith.
III. An explanation ofthe “money and/orproperty” that the Defendant supposedly
took from the Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant took intellectual property
ofthe Plaintiffin the form ofinformation about the Plaintiff’s customers, the details of
which are known only to the Defendant.
IV. A calculation ofthe Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
RESPONSE: The Plaintiff’s damages are calculated as follows:
Lost Gross Profit on Parts and Service $ 9,750.00
Lost Gross Profit on Sales $45,000.00
Total Lost Profit from A & B $54,750.00
Respectfully submitted,
THE PLAINTIFF -
IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC d/b/a
CENTRAL HYUNDAI
By 103001
John M. Wolfson
Benjamin M. Wattenmaker
FEINER WOLFSON LLC
One Constitution Plaza, Suite 900
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel. : (860) 713-8900
Fax. : (860) 713-8905
jwolfson@feinerwolfson.com
bwattenmaker@feinerwolfson.com
Juris # 415049
Its Attorneys
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on September 14, 2022, a copy ofthe foregoing was emailed or
delivered electronically or non-electronically to the following counsel ofrecord and that written
consent forelectronic delivery was received from the same.
William J. O’Sullivan, Esq.
O’SULLIVAN McCORMACK JENSEN & BLISS, PC
180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 210
Glastonbury, CT 06033
Phone: (860) 258-1993
Fax: (860) 258-1991
wosullivan@omjblaw.com
103001
John M. Wolfson
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED REDACTED
REDACTED REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
..
REDACTED
Preview
DOCKET NO.: WWM-CV21-6022016-S : SUPERIOR COURT : IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC d/b/a : J.D. OF WINDHAM CENTRAL HYUNDAI : : VS. : AT PUTNAM : BRENT MATTSON : SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 SECOND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE The defendant, Brent Mattson, submits this second memorandum in support of his Motion for Order of Compliance, dated March 31, 2022 (121.00) (“Defendant’s Motion”). In that motion, Mr. Mattson detailed the numerous, significant deficiencies in the plaintiff’s responses to Mr. Mattson’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Plaintiff, dated September 21, 2021 (“Discovery Request”). On July 29, 2022, Mr. Mattson submitted an initial memorandum (“First Memorandum in Support”) (132.00), in support of the Defendant’s Motion. The purpose of the present, second, memorandum is to reply to the plaintiff’s most recent purported response to the Discovery Request, explain why that response is unacceptable, and ask the court to bring the hammer down. Specifically, the defendant requests an order that this case be dismissed with prejudice, and that the plaintiff be required to pay the defendant’s entire legal expense associated with the Defendant’s Motion and related communications. The court (Lohr, J.) heard the Defendant’s Motion at a remote oral argument conducted on August 15, 2022. The court thereupon issued an order (121.20) compelling the plaintiff, within 30 days, to “comply with the requests as stated in the 4 bullet points on page 12 [sic: page 5] of the Memorandum in Support filed at docket entry #132.” On September 14, 2022, counsel for the plaintiff filed a Notice of Compliance, and at that time served upon the undersigned a copy of the same, together with an 11-page document consisting of (i) a 3-page “Plaintiff’s Responses to the Defendant’s Four Bullet Points Per Court Order dated August 15, 2022,” and (ii) eight (8) pages of the plaintiff’s business records (the “September Response”). A copy of the September Response, redacted by this firm to conceal financial data that the plaintiff may claim is sensitive and proprietary, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The plaintiff’s September Response is still completely unacceptable. Accordingly, the defendant requests an order of sanctions – including the ultimate sanction, dismissal of this case, which is richly deserved here. I. Background: the plaintiff’s Revised Complaint. In its Revised Complaint, which is dated September 26, 2021 (108.00) (“Complaint”), the plaintiff, Ironhorse Auto, LLC d/b/a Central Hyundai, alleges in relevant part as follows. The plaintiff is a dealer of Hyundai automobiles, and is situated in Plainfield, Connecticut. (Complaint, all counts, ¶ 1.) Mr. Mattson was an employee of the plaintiff, 2 as its Service Manager, commencing in or about August of 2019. (Id., ¶ 9.) In that capacity, Mr. Mattson had limited access to the plaintiff’s computerized Dealer Management System (“DMS”). (Id.) That system “contains all customer and financial information, including detailed customer information, employee information, details about the dealership’s new and used car inventories, the dealership’s parts inventory, the dealership’s service transactions, and the dealership’s finances.” (Id., ¶ 10.) On March 9, 2021, Mr. Mattson resigned his employment from the plaintiff, effective that day. (Complaint, all counts, ¶ 13-15.) The plaintiff thereupon terminated Mr. Mattson’s access to its DMS and company email. (Id., ¶ 16.) Mr. Mattson immediately commenced employment with Wile Hyundai, of Columbia, Connecticut (id., ¶ 17), a company that the plaintiff characterizes as its “direct competitor.” (Id., ¶ 3.) The plaintiff further alleges that on March 12, 2021, after Mr. Mattson had begun working at Wile Hyundai, he engaged in a communication with Hyundai Motor America (the maker and distributor of Hyundai vehicles in North America; Complaint ¶ 5), in which he misrepresented himself as a current employee of the plaintiff, and requested administrator rights and access to the plaintiff’s DMS. (Complaint, all counts, ¶ 18.) Hyundai North America, in turn, violated its own protocols and granted Mr. Mattson that access. (Id., ¶ 19.) The plaintiff further alleges that from then until April 2, 2021, Mr. Mattson “engaged in the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s DMS System” and “used his unauthorized access to view data belonging to the Plaintiff, which data was resident on 3 the Plaintiff’s DMS computer network.” (Id., ¶ 22.) With some supplemental allegations, the plaintiff asserts claims based on various legal theories. Significantly, and of great importance to this motion, the plaintiff alleged, and continues to allege, that as a result of purported misconduct on the part of Mr. Mattson, “numerous customers ceased doing business with the plaintiff.” (Complaint, Count Seven, ¶ 45; emphasis added.) Mr. Mattson unequivocally denies the plaintiff’s allegations of wrongdoing on his part. (Answer, Special Defenses and Counterclaim, dated February 16, 2022, 119.00.) II. The Discovery Request; the continuing, blatant inadequacy of the plaintiff’s response. Here is the relevant procedural sequence of events: • September 21, 2021: the undersigned counsel for the defendant serves the Discovery Request. The compliance deadline is November 20, 2021. • November 18, 2021: the plaintiff files a motion (114.00) seeking to extend its compliance deadline to December 20, 2021. That motion is granted (114.10). • December 13, 2021: the plaintiff files a motion (115.00) seeking to further extend its compliance deadline to January 18, 2022. That motion is granted (115.10). • January 18, 2022: the plaintiff serves the first version of its discovery response. 4 • February 1, 2022: the undersigned counsel for Mr. Mattson emails a 19-page letter to plaintiff’s counsel cataloguing the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s discovery response. • February 28, 2022: counsel conduct a telephonic meet-and-confer. Plaintiff’s counsel promises a redo of the discovery response. • March 14, 2022: email follow-up by the undersigned, regarding status of the amended discovery response. No response. • March 31, 2022: the undersigned files and serves the Defendant’s Motion. • April 25, 2022: counsel for the plaintiff serves an Amended Discovery Response, and files notice of the same (127.00), which is docketed the following day. • The next day, April 26, 2022, the undersigned sends an email to counsel for the plaintiff, pointing out the continuing deficiencies in the plaintiff’s response. (First Memorandum in Support, pp. 4-5.) A key issue was the plaintiff had alleged the loss of “numerous customers,” but had identified only one (1), A&B Transportation, in its Amended Discovery Response. (Id.) o Those persisting deficiencies were summarized in the following four (4) bullet points: Identity of the allegedly lost customers. Production of the files for those lost customers. Explanation of the “money and/or property” that the defendant supposedly took. 5 Calculation of the plaintiff’s alleged damages. (Id. p. 5.) • August 15, 2022: argument of the Defendant’s Motion; the court issues its order compelling the plaintiff to address the four (4) bullet points. • September 14, 2022: the plaintiff serves the September Response. Thanks to the September Response, which was provided fifty-one (51) weeks after service of the Discovery Request, we now have confirmation that this case is premised on literally nothing. The plaintiff’s response to bullet point #1, “identity of the allegedly lost customers,” is as follows: “The plaintiff lost A & B Transportation as a customer.” One. One “lost” customer. Here we are, some sixteen (16) months into the case, with the plaintiff still alleging the loss of “numerous” customers, and now we learn that “numerous” does not mean “numerous.” It means “one.” But wait – it gets better (or worse). To address bullet point #2, the plaintiff produced its customer file for A&B Transportation, the allegedly “lost” customer (including transaction information about Joshua Brown, who is the “B” in “A&B.”) (September Response, attached hereto.) From those documents, we see numerous transactions between the plaintiff and A&B/Mr. Brown since Mr. Mattson left the company on or about March 9, 2021. This includes the following: • A vehicle purchase on November 19, 2021; 6 • Another vehicle purchase, just eight (8) weeks ago, on July 19, 2022; • Six (6) service appointments in the name of A&B’s principal, Mr. Brown, between July of 2021 and August 31, 2022 (two weeks ago); and • Almost two dozen service appointments in the name of A&B, between April of 2021 (weeks after Mr. Mattson left the plaintiff’s employ) and, again, August 31, 2022. So, let us be clear about the sophistry that the plaintiff has perpetrated here. According to the plaintiff, “numerous” means “one,” and “lost customer” (or as alleged in the Complaint, customer who has “ceased doing business with the plaintiff”) means “customer with whom we regularly transact business.” Channeling Humpty Dumpty, apparently when the plaintiff uses a word, “it means just what [the plaintiff] choose[s] it to mean – neither more nor less.” 1 We further note that at bullet point #4, the plaintiff was required to provide “a calculation of the Plaintiff’s alleged damages.” The predicate for that bullet point was interrogatory #12 of the Discovery Request (as noted in the First Memorandum in Support, at page 6), demanding that the plaintiff “state the dollar amount of [your] damage, and provide a detailed explanation of the methodology that you used for the 1 Carroll, L, “Through the Looking Glass” (1871), Ch. VI. To which Alice questioned “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Id. To which we would reply, “not in a court of law, you can’t.” 7 calculation.” (Emphasis added.) Par for the course, the plaintiff replied just the way it felt like replying, stating one dollar amount for “lost gross profit on parts and service,” another dollar amount for “lost gross profit on sales” – and providing not a hint of how those numbers were arrived at. Enough, already. IV. Law and Argument. We note again that under section 13-14 of the Practice Book, the court may impose sanctions against a party who “has failed to answer interrogatories or to answer them fairly.” (Emphasis added.) It cannot be seriously disputed that in the present case, the plaintiff has failed to answer the defendant’s interrogatories “fairly.” Rather, the plaintiff has dragged out the discovery process endlessly, providing evasive and misleading replies. Only now, after considerable legal work and expense on the part of the defendant, has the plaintiff come clean, sort of, and effectively acknowledged that it has no case. The plaintiff’s conduct has been, in a word, outrageous. At subpart (b), rule 13-14 provides a menu of sanction options: (1) The entry of a nonsuit or default against the party failing to comply; (2) The award to the discovering party of the costs of the motion, including a reasonable attorney’s fee; (3) The entry of an order that the matters regarding which the discovery was sought or other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order; 8 (4) The entry of an order prohibiting the party who has failed to comply from introducing designated matters in evidence; (5) If the party failing to comply is the plaintiff, the entry of a judgment of dismissal. Id. To this point, the defendant has been quite measured in his request for sanctions. Not anymore. The defendant now seeks a sanction that will put this entire charade to an end. We note that here, the issue is not simply a matter of procedural impropriety, egregious as it has been. The end product of this torturous process has been the plaintiff’s tacit admission, finally, that it has no case. The time is nigh for the court to make that official. And as noted, the defendant seeks indemnity for his legal fees, in an amount to be determined at a future hearing. DEFENDANT, BRENT MATTSON By 403444 William J. O’Sullivan O’Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC 180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 210 Glastonbury, CT 06033 Phone: (860) 258-1993 Fax: (860) 258-1991 wosullivan@omjblaw.com Juris # 407344 His Attorneys 9 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on September 16, 2022, a copy of the above was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were or will immediately be electronically served. Service list: John Wolfson, Esq. Feiner Wolfson LLC One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 jwolfson@feinerwolfson.com 403444 William J. O’Sullivan 10 EXHIBIT 1 DOCKET NO.: WWM-CV21-6022016-S : SUPERIOR COURT : IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC d/b/a : J.D. OF WINDHAM CENTRAL HYUNDAI : : VS. : AT PUTNAM : BRENT MATTSON : SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO THE DEFENDANT’S FOUR BULLET POINTS PER COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST 15, 2022 Pursuant to the Court’s (Lohr, J.) Order dated August 15, 2022, requiring the Plaintiff to fully respond to the Four (4) categories or “bullet points” on Page 5 (not 12) ofthe Defendant’s Memorandum, the Plaintiff states as follows: I. The Identity ofany allegedly lost customers. RESPONSE: The Plaintifflost A & B Transportation as a customer. II. The files forthose lost customers. RESPONSE: The files for A & B Transportation are enclosed herewith. III. An explanation ofthe “money and/orproperty” that the Defendant supposedly took from the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant took intellectual property ofthe Plaintiffin the form ofinformation about the Plaintiff’s customers, the details of which are known only to the Defendant. IV. A calculation ofthe Plaintiff’s alleged damages. RESPONSE: The Plaintiff’s damages are calculated as follows: Lost Gross Profit on Parts and Service $ 9,750.00 Lost Gross Profit on Sales $45,000.00 Total Lost Profit from A & B $54,750.00 Respectfully submitted, THE PLAINTIFF - IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC d/b/a CENTRAL HYUNDAI By 103001 John M. Wolfson Benjamin M. Wattenmaker FEINER WOLFSON LLC One Constitution Plaza, Suite 900 Hartford, CT 06103 Tel. : (860) 713-8900 Fax. : (860) 713-8905 jwolfson@feinerwolfson.com bwattenmaker@feinerwolfson.com Juris # 415049 Its Attorneys CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on September 14, 2022, a copy ofthe foregoing was emailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically to the following counsel ofrecord and that written consent forelectronic delivery was received from the same. William J. O’Sullivan, Esq. O’SULLIVAN McCORMACK JENSEN & BLISS, PC 180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 210 Glastonbury, CT 06033 Phone: (860) 258-1993 Fax: (860) 258-1991 wosullivan@omjblaw.com 103001 John M. Wolfson REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED .. REDACTED