On May 27, 2021 a
Party Notice
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ironhorse Auto, Llc, D B A Central Hyundai,
and
Brent Mattson,
for T90 - Torts - All other
in the District Court of Windham County.
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 30, 2022
SECTION 11-18 NOTICE (REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT)
In accordance with § 11-18 of the Practice Book, the Plaintiff, Ironhorse Auto, LLC d/b/a
Central Hyundai, by and through its counsel, respectfully gives notice that it seeks oral argument
on Item 121.00, the Defendant’s most recent Motion for Order of Compliance.
The Defendant’s Motion for Order of Compliance is currently on the 10/03/22, Short
Calendar SC-10 at #003.
In his Motion, the Defendant, Brett Mattson, contends that the Plaintiff’s recent responses
to Defendant’s discovery requests are insufficient, and that sanctions are warranted. In addition,
the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s case “is premised on literally nothing.” Motion at 6.
However, the Defendant is mistaken. Contrary to the Defendant’s claims, the Plaintiff has fully
responded to the trial court’s order dated August 15, 2022, and that on September 14, 2022, the
Plaintiff provided the Defendant with all of the responsive documents and information within its
custody and control. There is no basis for sanctions in this case. Moreover, this is a case where
the Plaintiff has already produced substantial evidence that Defendant Mattson wrongfully
accessed the Plaintiff’s computerized Dealer Management System (“DMS”), as alleged in the
Plaintiff’s Complaint1, and that the Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result. Further, the
Defendant is making an argument that is better suited to a motion for summary judgment, or at
1
On August 8, 2022, the Plaintiff provided Defendant’s counsel with detailed amended responses to the Defendant’s
44 Interrogatories and documents in response to Defendant’s 25 Requests for Production.
trial: that the Plaintiff has not produced enough evidence to support its claims. But it is not
appropriate to make such arguments in a motion for discovery sanctions.
Given that sanctions are being sought by the Defendant for a discovery violation, the
Plaintiff respectfully requests an opportunity to be heard with respect to this motion.
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 30, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was emailed or
delivered electronically or non-electronically to the following counsel of record and that written
consent for electronic 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
Document Filed Date
September 30, 2022
Case Filing Date
May 27, 2021
Category
T90 - Torts - All other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.