Preview
DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV22-6114270-S : SUPERIOR COURT
PHIL’s GRILL, LLC : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
v. : AT BRIDGEPORT
NOROTON HEIGHTS SHOPPING CENTER,
INC. and NOROTON HEIGHTS & :
COMPANY, LLC : OCTOBER 17, 2022
PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO COURT
ORDER DATED AUGUST DATED AUGUST 8, 2022
Plaintiff PHIL’s GRILL, LLC, respectfully files Plaintiff's Motion for Order of
Compliance Pursuant to Court Order dated August 8, 2022, and represents the following:
I, Case Chronology:
1. This case was commenced on April 1, 2022.
2. Plaintiff filed a motion for Default for Failure to Appear (Doc. 105) on April 19,
2022.
3. An appearance was filed by Abram J. Heisler on behalf of the defendants on April
26, 2022.4. Attorney Corbett filed an Appearance in addition to Attorney Heisler on behalf of
the defendants on July 15, 2022.
5. Plaintiff certified a copy of Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production to counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants on April 29, 2022.
6. Plaintiff filed a NOTICE OF SERVICE OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PB
13-22 (Doc.#106) on May 10, 2022.
7. The defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or
request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) dated May 31, 2022, seeking until July 12, 2022, to respond to the
plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production and plaintiff's Requests for Admissions.
8. Plaintiff filed a limited Objection to defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time Re
Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) stating that plaintiff did not object to the
time extension as requested by defendants of July 12, 2022, but requested that the Court
preclude any further motions for extension of time absent exigent circumstances.
9. Defendants never marked their Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery
Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) ready.10. The date requested by defendants of July 12, 2022, to respond to the plaintiff's
Interrogatories and Requests for Production and plaintiff's Requests for Admissions passed. The
defendants had not filed a response to plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production and
plaintiff's Requests for Admissions. The defendants had not filed a second motion for extension
of time. As a result of this pattern of failing to comply with the mandates of the Connecticut
Practice Book, plaintiff filed a Motion for Order of Compliance on July 14. 2022 (Doc.#115).
ll. The undersigned and Attorney Corbett spoke on July 18, 2022, when, at such
time, given the first Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with discovery was not objected
to, no responses were sent, and the extension date requested by defendants had passed, the
plaintiff did not authorize consent to further extensions of time.
12. Plaintiff marked its Motion for Order of Compliance on August 4, 2022.
13. Defendants emailed a copy of its Second Motion for Extension of Time To
Respond To plaintiffs Requests to Admit and Second Motion for Extension of Time To
Respond to plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Doc.#s 118 and 120) on
Sunday, August 7, 2022 at approximately 6:30 p.m. and filed the same motion on August 8,
2022, on the date of the hearing.14. On August 8, 2022, the Court (Tyma, J.) issued an order on Plaintiff's initial
Motion for Order of Compliance (Doc.#115), which stated in part: “Compliance with discovery
and responses to admissions are ordered by August 10, 2022. If the moving party has not
received compliance by that date, the moving party may file another motion so attesting
and referencing this order and a sanction, proportional to the violation . . . will issue.”
Court Order dated August 8, 2022 in its entirety is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
15. The Defendants, On August 10, 2022, filed a purported notice of compliance
titled: Notice of Filing Objections and Initial Compliance to Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories and Request for Production and a purported notice of compliance with requests
for admissions titled: Notice of Filing Initial Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admission.
16. Defendants’ counsel provided counsel for the Plaintiff with purported discovery
responses and objections as well as purported responses and objections to requests to admit via
email on August 10, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. Defendants have not filed their objections with court as
required by Practice Book Rules §§ 13-8, 13-10 and 13-23. Defendants’ responses and
objections to discovery and Defendants responses (Exhibit B) and objections to Request to
Admit (Exhibit C).17. Thereafter, subsequent to the Courts Order regarding discovery (Doc.# 115.10)
requiring Defendants to comply with Plaintiff's Requests to Admit and Interrogatories and
Requests for Production by August 10, 2002, Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time
To Respond To plaintiff's Requests to Admit and Second Motion for Extension of Time To
Respond to plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Doc.#s 118 and !20) were
both granted on August 22, 2022 (Doc.#s 118.10 and 120.10) extending defendant’s opportunity
to comply with Plaintiff's Requests to Admit and Interrogatories and Requests for Production an
additional 30 days. This extension date has expired and no further responses to plaintiff's
discovery requests were filed or certified to plaintiff.
IL. Argument
Defendants failed to comply with discovery and responses to admissions by August 10,
2022, as required by Court Order dated August 8, 2022 and further failed to comply with
discovery and responses to admissions required by the Court Order dated August 22, 2022.
A. Defendant’s Initial Response to Plaintiff's First Set_of Interrogatories and
Requests for Production do_not comport to Practice Book Rules_and Fail to
Comply with the Court Order dated August 8, 2022Out of the 33 Interrogatories served, the Defendants’ only provided responses to 3 and
none of those 3 responses comply with the Court Order dated August 8, 2022. See Responses to
Interrogatory #s 1,3, and 7 (Attached as Exhibit B). Defendants’ Response to Interrogatory |
states: “James Palmer will be responding to this discovery.” This response is noncompliant as its
states “will be responding” and the Defendants have qualified the entirety of their discovery
submission by labeling it as “Defendants’ Initial Response”, further the purported responses to
the Interrogatories are not signed by the person making them as required under Practice Book
Rule 13-7 and therefore the entirety of Defendants’ responses do not comply with the Court
Order of August 8, 2022, as well as Practice Book Rules.
With respect to 9 of the Interrogatories (Interrogatory #s 15,16,17,18,19,35, 36, 37, and
38!) Defendants provided the following response: “Defense counsel is endeavoring to be able to
respond to the specific allegations expeditiously.” This response does not comply with the
August 8, 2022, Court Order. The Court Order required the Defendants to “comply with
discovery” however the Defendants have merely attempted to extend the time in which to file a
response by stating that they are trying to. provide a response in the future. Even if the Court
' Defendants further objected to Interrogatories 35,36,37 and 38 on the basis that said Interrogatories are overly
broad and unduly burdensome.
6were to take into consideration the granting of the thirty-day extension pursuant to the Court
Orders on August 22, 2022 (Doc.fs 118.10 and 120.10), the defendants failed to supplement
their initial incomplete discovery responses violative of the Court Orders as of the date of this
Motion. A discovery response stating “counsel is endeavoring to be able to respond” is
violative of the August 8, 2022, Court Order as may have been extended. Furthermore, said
response is not a valid answer to discovery served on the Defendants over 4 months ago.
B. Defendants Failed to Comply with the Court Order
Defendants objected to 21 Interrogatories. (See = Interrogatory = #s
8,9,10,11,12,13,14,20,21,22,25,26,27,28,29,30,3 1,35,36,37, and 38).
Plaintiff moved for an order of compliance pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-14. The
Court issued Court Order dated August 8, 2022 ordering the Defendants to comply with
Plaintiffs discovery by August 10, 2022. Defendants forfeited their rights to object to discovery
by (1) missing the required deadline to file objections and further and most importantly the (2)
Defendants were barred from filing objections to discovery pursuant to the Court Order dated
August 8, 2022 wherein the Court ordered the Defendants to comply with Plaintiffs discovery.
Ugalde v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, Inc. et al, 182 Conn.App. | (2018). See also Practice BookSection 13-14(c) which states in relevant part: “[t]he failure to comply as described in this
section may not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable unless written
objection as authorized by Sections 13-6 through 13-11 has been filed.”
A majority of the defendants’ objections are based upon the contention that the
information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
and is overly broad and duly burdensome. Pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-7 requires
objections to interrogatories and the reasons therefore to be filed and served within sixty days
unless upon motion the judicial authority allows for a longer time. The defendants filed a
Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) dated May
31, 2022, seeking until July 12, 2022, to respond to the plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests
for Production and plaintiffs Requests for Admissions. Defendants never marked their Motion
for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) ready.
Notwithstanding the failure to mark the Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or
request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) ready and, even if claimed and granted, the time to file any
objections to discovery would have expired on July 12, 2022. The Defendants did not file for a
second extension of time to file objections until August 8, 2022, 25 days after Plaintiff filedPlaintiff's Motion for Order of Compliance with the Court. Furthermore, the Defendants’
objections were not filed with the court as required under Practice Book Rules. See Practice
Book Sections 13-7, 13-8. As a result of the expiration of the deadline to file objections to
Plaintiff's discovery and Defendants’ lack of responding to Plaintiffs discovery in any way, the
Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Compliance.
Defendants objected to 12 out of 15 Requests for Production (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13
and 14). Defendants’ objections are improper pursuant to the dictates of the Connecticut
Practice Book and the issued Court Order dated August 8, 2022, in response to Plaintiff's First
Motion for Order of Compliance (Doc.#115) (P.B. Section 13-14) which ordered the Defendants
to comply with discovery. Practice Book Section 13-14(c) states in relevant part: “{t}he failure
to comply as described in this section may not be excused on the ground that the discovery is
objectionable unless written objection as authorized by Sections 13-6 through 13-11 has been
filed.” The Defendants did not file their objections until after the Court ordered compliance with
discovery. Furthermore, the objections were untimely as more fully set forth above.
Cc. Defendants Failed to Object to Discovery Requests in A Timely Manner.
Connecticut Practice Book §13-7(a)(3)(d) states in relevant part that “Objection by aparty to certain of the interrogatories directed such party shall not relieve that party of the
obligation to answer the interrogatories to which he or she has not objected to within the sixty
day period” Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and requests for Production dated April 29,
2022 were due on June 29, 2022 but were not provided to plaintiff until August 10, 2022 and not
filed with the Court. Similarly, Connecticut Practice Book §13-23(a) states in relevant part,
“Each matter of which an admission is requested is admitted unless, within thirty days after the
filing of the notice required by Section 13-22(b)...the party to whom the request is directed files
and serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to
the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney”. Objection to Plaintiff's Request for
Admissions dated May 10, 2022, were due on June 10, 2022. The Objections to the Requests for
Admissions were not served upon plaintiff's counsel until August 10, 2022. Timely objections
were not filed in this instant matter.
10Til. Conclusion
Based on the defendants’ failure to comply with the Connecticut Practice Book rules
regarding compliance with Discovery Requests and Requests for Admission, failure to comply
with this Court’s order regarding the discovery requests, and defendants’ failure to file
Objections to plaintiff's discovery requests in a timely manner in violation of the Connecticut
Practice Book, the plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter the following orders:
1. As the defendants have failed to file any Objections to plaintiff's Request For
Admissions within thirty. (30) days after the filing of Notice by Plaintiff (NOTICE OF SERVICE
OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PB 13-22 (Doc.#106) on May 10, 2022) the Requests for
Admission shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable and therefore,
defendants are ordered to admit or deny plaintiff's May 10, 2022, Requests for Admission in
their entirety by a date certain.; and
2. As defendants failed to file objections to that defendant’s plaintiffs April 29,
2022, Interrogatories and Request for Production within sixty (60) days of service in violation of
Connecticut Practice Book §13-7(3), failed to file their objections with court as required by
Practice Book Rules §§ 13-8, 13-10 and 13-23, Interrogatories and Request for Production shall
ltnot be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable and therefore, defendants are
ordered to comply with plaintiff's April 29, 2022, Interrogatories and Request for Production in
their entirety by a date certain.
THE PLAINTIFF
PHIL’S GRILL, LLC
By: Juris # 305398
Scott C. DeLaura
Palumbo & DeLaura, LLC
528 Chapel Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Phone: 203.773.1113
Juris No. 415035ORDER
The foregoing Motion for Order of Compliance having been heard, it is hereby Ordered:
1. As the defendants have failed to file any Objections to plaintiff's Request For
Admissions within thirty (30) days after the filing of Notice by Plaintiff (NOTICE OF
SERVICE OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PB 13-22 (Doc.#106) on May 10,
2022) the Requests for Admission shall not be excused on the ground that the
discovery is objectionable and therefore, defendants are ordered to admit or deny
plaintiff's May 10, 2022, Requests for Admission in their entirety by a date certain.
2. As defendants have failed to file any objections to plaintiff's Interrogatories and
Requests for Production in compliance with Connecticut Practice Book Sections 13-6
through 13-11 and prior Court Order, that defendant’s failure to comply with
discovery shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable and
therefore, defendants are ordered to comply with plaintiffs May 10, 2022,
Interrogatories and Request for Production in their entirety by a date certain.
( J)
Asst. Court/ Judge
13CERTIFICATION
This shall certify that a copy of the above was electronically delivered on the date hereof
to all counsel of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all
counsel of record who were electronically served.
Abram Heisler
Attorney at Law
16 River Street, second floor
Norwalk, CT 06850
LITCHFIELD CAVO (416477)
82 HOPMEADOW STREET
SUITE 210
SIMSBURY, CT 06089
Juris No. 305398
Scott C. DeLaura
Preview
DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV22-6114270-S : SUPERIOR COURT PHIL’s GRILL, LLC : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD v. : AT BRIDGEPORT NOROTON HEIGHTS SHOPPING CENTER, INC. and NOROTON HEIGHTS & : COMPANY, LLC : OCTOBER 17, 2022 PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST DATED AUGUST 8, 2022 Plaintiff PHIL’s GRILL, LLC, respectfully files Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Compliance Pursuant to Court Order dated August 8, 2022, and represents the following: I, Case Chronology: 1. This case was commenced on April 1, 2022. 2. Plaintiff filed a motion for Default for Failure to Appear (Doc. 105) on April 19, 2022. 3. An appearance was filed by Abram J. Heisler on behalf of the defendants on April 26, 2022.4. Attorney Corbett filed an Appearance in addition to Attorney Heisler on behalf of the defendants on July 15, 2022. 5. Plaintiff certified a copy of Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants on April 29, 2022. 6. Plaintiff filed a NOTICE OF SERVICE OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PB 13-22 (Doc.#106) on May 10, 2022. 7. The defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) dated May 31, 2022, seeking until July 12, 2022, to respond to the plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production and plaintiff's Requests for Admissions. 8. Plaintiff filed a limited Objection to defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) stating that plaintiff did not object to the time extension as requested by defendants of July 12, 2022, but requested that the Court preclude any further motions for extension of time absent exigent circumstances. 9. Defendants never marked their Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) ready.10. The date requested by defendants of July 12, 2022, to respond to the plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production and plaintiff's Requests for Admissions passed. The defendants had not filed a response to plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production and plaintiff's Requests for Admissions. The defendants had not filed a second motion for extension of time. As a result of this pattern of failing to comply with the mandates of the Connecticut Practice Book, plaintiff filed a Motion for Order of Compliance on July 14. 2022 (Doc.#115). ll. The undersigned and Attorney Corbett spoke on July 18, 2022, when, at such time, given the first Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with discovery was not objected to, no responses were sent, and the extension date requested by defendants had passed, the plaintiff did not authorize consent to further extensions of time. 12. Plaintiff marked its Motion for Order of Compliance on August 4, 2022. 13. Defendants emailed a copy of its Second Motion for Extension of Time To Respond To plaintiffs Requests to Admit and Second Motion for Extension of Time To Respond to plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Doc.#s 118 and 120) on Sunday, August 7, 2022 at approximately 6:30 p.m. and filed the same motion on August 8, 2022, on the date of the hearing.14. On August 8, 2022, the Court (Tyma, J.) issued an order on Plaintiff's initial Motion for Order of Compliance (Doc.#115), which stated in part: “Compliance with discovery and responses to admissions are ordered by August 10, 2022. If the moving party has not received compliance by that date, the moving party may file another motion so attesting and referencing this order and a sanction, proportional to the violation . . . will issue.” Court Order dated August 8, 2022 in its entirety is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. The Defendants, On August 10, 2022, filed a purported notice of compliance titled: Notice of Filing Objections and Initial Compliance to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production and a purported notice of compliance with requests for admissions titled: Notice of Filing Initial Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admission. 16. Defendants’ counsel provided counsel for the Plaintiff with purported discovery responses and objections as well as purported responses and objections to requests to admit via email on August 10, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. Defendants have not filed their objections with court as required by Practice Book Rules §§ 13-8, 13-10 and 13-23. Defendants’ responses and objections to discovery and Defendants responses (Exhibit B) and objections to Request to Admit (Exhibit C).17. Thereafter, subsequent to the Courts Order regarding discovery (Doc.# 115.10) requiring Defendants to comply with Plaintiff's Requests to Admit and Interrogatories and Requests for Production by August 10, 2002, Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time To Respond To plaintiff's Requests to Admit and Second Motion for Extension of Time To Respond to plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Doc.#s 118 and !20) were both granted on August 22, 2022 (Doc.#s 118.10 and 120.10) extending defendant’s opportunity to comply with Plaintiff's Requests to Admit and Interrogatories and Requests for Production an additional 30 days. This extension date has expired and no further responses to plaintiff's discovery requests were filed or certified to plaintiff. IL. Argument Defendants failed to comply with discovery and responses to admissions by August 10, 2022, as required by Court Order dated August 8, 2022 and further failed to comply with discovery and responses to admissions required by the Court Order dated August 22, 2022. A. Defendant’s Initial Response to Plaintiff's First Set_of Interrogatories and Requests for Production do_not comport to Practice Book Rules_and Fail to Comply with the Court Order dated August 8, 2022Out of the 33 Interrogatories served, the Defendants’ only provided responses to 3 and none of those 3 responses comply with the Court Order dated August 8, 2022. See Responses to Interrogatory #s 1,3, and 7 (Attached as Exhibit B). Defendants’ Response to Interrogatory | states: “James Palmer will be responding to this discovery.” This response is noncompliant as its states “will be responding” and the Defendants have qualified the entirety of their discovery submission by labeling it as “Defendants’ Initial Response”, further the purported responses to the Interrogatories are not signed by the person making them as required under Practice Book Rule 13-7 and therefore the entirety of Defendants’ responses do not comply with the Court Order of August 8, 2022, as well as Practice Book Rules. With respect to 9 of the Interrogatories (Interrogatory #s 15,16,17,18,19,35, 36, 37, and 38!) Defendants provided the following response: “Defense counsel is endeavoring to be able to respond to the specific allegations expeditiously.” This response does not comply with the August 8, 2022, Court Order. The Court Order required the Defendants to “comply with discovery” however the Defendants have merely attempted to extend the time in which to file a response by stating that they are trying to. provide a response in the future. Even if the Court ' Defendants further objected to Interrogatories 35,36,37 and 38 on the basis that said Interrogatories are overly broad and unduly burdensome. 6were to take into consideration the granting of the thirty-day extension pursuant to the Court Orders on August 22, 2022 (Doc.fs 118.10 and 120.10), the defendants failed to supplement their initial incomplete discovery responses violative of the Court Orders as of the date of this Motion. A discovery response stating “counsel is endeavoring to be able to respond” is violative of the August 8, 2022, Court Order as may have been extended. Furthermore, said response is not a valid answer to discovery served on the Defendants over 4 months ago. B. Defendants Failed to Comply with the Court Order Defendants objected to 21 Interrogatories. (See = Interrogatory = #s 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,20,21,22,25,26,27,28,29,30,3 1,35,36,37, and 38). Plaintiff moved for an order of compliance pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-14. The Court issued Court Order dated August 8, 2022 ordering the Defendants to comply with Plaintiffs discovery by August 10, 2022. Defendants forfeited their rights to object to discovery by (1) missing the required deadline to file objections and further and most importantly the (2) Defendants were barred from filing objections to discovery pursuant to the Court Order dated August 8, 2022 wherein the Court ordered the Defendants to comply with Plaintiffs discovery. Ugalde v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, Inc. et al, 182 Conn.App. | (2018). See also Practice BookSection 13-14(c) which states in relevant part: “[t]he failure to comply as described in this section may not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable unless written objection as authorized by Sections 13-6 through 13-11 has been filed.” A majority of the defendants’ objections are based upon the contention that the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is overly broad and duly burdensome. Pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-7 requires objections to interrogatories and the reasons therefore to be filed and served within sixty days unless upon motion the judicial authority allows for a longer time. The defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) dated May 31, 2022, seeking until July 12, 2022, to respond to the plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production and plaintiffs Requests for Admissions. Defendants never marked their Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) ready. Notwithstanding the failure to mark the Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion Or request PB CH13 (Doc.#110) ready and, even if claimed and granted, the time to file any objections to discovery would have expired on July 12, 2022. The Defendants did not file for a second extension of time to file objections until August 8, 2022, 25 days after Plaintiff filedPlaintiff's Motion for Order of Compliance with the Court. Furthermore, the Defendants’ objections were not filed with the court as required under Practice Book Rules. See Practice Book Sections 13-7, 13-8. As a result of the expiration of the deadline to file objections to Plaintiff's discovery and Defendants’ lack of responding to Plaintiffs discovery in any way, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Compliance. Defendants objected to 12 out of 15 Requests for Production (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14). Defendants’ objections are improper pursuant to the dictates of the Connecticut Practice Book and the issued Court Order dated August 8, 2022, in response to Plaintiff's First Motion for Order of Compliance (Doc.#115) (P.B. Section 13-14) which ordered the Defendants to comply with discovery. Practice Book Section 13-14(c) states in relevant part: “{t}he failure to comply as described in this section may not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable unless written objection as authorized by Sections 13-6 through 13-11 has been filed.” The Defendants did not file their objections until after the Court ordered compliance with discovery. Furthermore, the objections were untimely as more fully set forth above. Cc. Defendants Failed to Object to Discovery Requests in A Timely Manner. Connecticut Practice Book §13-7(a)(3)(d) states in relevant part that “Objection by aparty to certain of the interrogatories directed such party shall not relieve that party of the obligation to answer the interrogatories to which he or she has not objected to within the sixty day period” Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and requests for Production dated April 29, 2022 were due on June 29, 2022 but were not provided to plaintiff until August 10, 2022 and not filed with the Court. Similarly, Connecticut Practice Book §13-23(a) states in relevant part, “Each matter of which an admission is requested is admitted unless, within thirty days after the filing of the notice required by Section 13-22(b)...the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney”. Objection to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions dated May 10, 2022, were due on June 10, 2022. The Objections to the Requests for Admissions were not served upon plaintiff's counsel until August 10, 2022. Timely objections were not filed in this instant matter. 10Til. Conclusion Based on the defendants’ failure to comply with the Connecticut Practice Book rules regarding compliance with Discovery Requests and Requests for Admission, failure to comply with this Court’s order regarding the discovery requests, and defendants’ failure to file Objections to plaintiff's discovery requests in a timely manner in violation of the Connecticut Practice Book, the plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter the following orders: 1. As the defendants have failed to file any Objections to plaintiff's Request For Admissions within thirty. (30) days after the filing of Notice by Plaintiff (NOTICE OF SERVICE OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PB 13-22 (Doc.#106) on May 10, 2022) the Requests for Admission shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable and therefore, defendants are ordered to admit or deny plaintiff's May 10, 2022, Requests for Admission in their entirety by a date certain.; and 2. As defendants failed to file objections to that defendant’s plaintiffs April 29, 2022, Interrogatories and Request for Production within sixty (60) days of service in violation of Connecticut Practice Book §13-7(3), failed to file their objections with court as required by Practice Book Rules §§ 13-8, 13-10 and 13-23, Interrogatories and Request for Production shall ltnot be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable and therefore, defendants are ordered to comply with plaintiff's April 29, 2022, Interrogatories and Request for Production in their entirety by a date certain. THE PLAINTIFF PHIL’S GRILL, LLC By: Juris # 305398 Scott C. DeLaura Palumbo & DeLaura, LLC 528 Chapel Street New Haven, CT 06511 Phone: 203.773.1113 Juris No. 415035ORDER The foregoing Motion for Order of Compliance having been heard, it is hereby Ordered: 1. As the defendants have failed to file any Objections to plaintiff's Request For Admissions within thirty (30) days after the filing of Notice by Plaintiff (NOTICE OF SERVICE OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PB 13-22 (Doc.#106) on May 10, 2022) the Requests for Admission shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable and therefore, defendants are ordered to admit or deny plaintiff's May 10, 2022, Requests for Admission in their entirety by a date certain. 2. As defendants have failed to file any objections to plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production in compliance with Connecticut Practice Book Sections 13-6 through 13-11 and prior Court Order, that defendant’s failure to comply with discovery shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable and therefore, defendants are ordered to comply with plaintiffs May 10, 2022, Interrogatories and Request for Production in their entirety by a date certain. ( J) Asst. Court/ Judge 13CERTIFICATION This shall certify that a copy of the above was electronically delivered on the date hereof to all counsel of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel of record who were electronically served. Abram Heisler Attorney at Law 16 River Street, second floor Norwalk, CT 06850 LITCHFIELD CAVO (416477) 82 HOPMEADOW STREET SUITE 210 SIMSBURY, CT 06089 Juris No. 305398 Scott C. DeLaura