arrow left
arrow right
  • IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC, D/B/A CENTRAL HYUNDAI v. MATTSON, BRENTT90 - Torts - All other document preview
  • IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC, D/B/A CENTRAL HYUNDAI v. MATTSON, BRENTT90 - Torts - All other document preview
  • IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC, D/B/A CENTRAL HYUNDAI v. MATTSON, BRENTT90 - Torts - All other document preview
  • IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC, D/B/A CENTRAL HYUNDAI v. MATTSON, BRENTT90 - Torts - All other document preview
  • IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC, D/B/A CENTRAL HYUNDAI v. MATTSON, BRENTT90 - Torts - All other document preview
  • IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC, D/B/A CENTRAL HYUNDAI v. MATTSON, BRENTT90 - Torts - All other document preview
						
                                

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