Preview
NO. UWY-CV-20-6056586-S : SUPERIOR COURT
KEVIN MCSWIGGAN : J.D. OF WATERBURY
VS. : AT WATERBURY
O’BRIEN INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC : JANUARY 24, 2024
MOTION TO REARGUE
Pursuant to Practice Book §11-12, the undersigned requests the court to allow reargument and
requests reconsideration of its order granting the defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony, docket
entry #130.00 entered by the Honorable Carletha Parkinson on January 22, 2024, docket entry #130.10. The
undersigned respectfully states that there are good arguments and a valid objection to the motion to preclude.
As the court is well aware, discovery in this matter is ongoing and there have been motions relative to
discovery which have been filed by the defendant and the plaintiff has responded to those and has submitted
substantial supplemental compliance with the discovery requests, including tax returns for 2016 and 2017,
which form the basis of the defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony. While the court is correct that
an objection was not filed, mistakenly, it was the undersigned’s belief that this motion would not go forward
without a hearing or be referred to the trial judge at the time of trial. Further, since supplemental discovery,
including the tax returns, had been filed on January 9, 2024, the undersigned believed that the defendant
would not move forward with the motion to preclude.
COYNE, VON KÜHN, BRADY & FRIES, LLC
4 ARMSTRONG ROAD, SHELTON, CT 06484 * (203) 378-7100 * FAX (203) 378-7711 * JURIS NO. 419047
1
Trial in this matter is not scheduled until June 4, 2024. The undersigned is filing his objection to the
motion to preclude along with this motion to reargue and requests that the court reconsider its decision and
schedule argument relative to a motion to preclude. Determining a motion to preclude expert testimony
without having a hearing or evaluating the testimony of the expert is extremely prejudicial to the plaintiff and
the undersigned requests that the court allow this argument to proceed so as to allow the plaintiff to pursue
the claim. As of January 9, 2024, the defendant was provided the tax returns which it cites as the main basis
of the motion to preclude. However, more importantly, as is referenced in the objection, Attorney Vargas’
opinion as a former Commissioner of Workers’ Compensation as to the value of Mr. McSwiggan’s lost
workers’ compensation claim is relevant and admissible. This expert was timely disclosed and was also
deposed by defense counsel. Defense counsel never even made inquiry as to the formulation and/or basis of
his opinion at said deposition. How can the defendant claim that said expert should be precluded without
detailing the opinion already obtained.
Accordingly, the undersigned requests relief from the court allowing this matter to be set down for an
argument.
THE PLAINTIFF KEVIN McSWIGGAN
BY:___/s/406995________________________
Kevin S. Coyne
Coyne, von Kuhn, Brady & Fries, LLC
COYNE, VON KÜHN, BRADY & FRIES, LLC
4 ARMSTRONG ROAD, SHELTON, CT 06484 * (203) 378-7100 * FAX (203) 378-7711 * JURIS NO. 419047
2
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been E-filed with the court and sent via Electronic
Mail only, this 24th day of January, 2024, to:
Denise DeSole-Kennedy, Esquire
DelSole & DelSole, LLP
46 South Whittlesey Avenue
Wallingford, CT 06492
DDK@delsoledelsole.com
LindaM@delsoledelsole.com
BY:___/s/406995________________________
Kevin S. Coyne
Coyne, von Kuhn, Brady & Fries, LLC
COYNE, VON KÜHN, BRADY & FRIES, LLC
4 ARMSTRONG ROAD, SHELTON, CT 06484 * (203) 378-7100 * FAX (203) 378-7711 * JURIS NO. 419047
3
Preview
NO. UWY-CV-20-6056586-S : SUPERIOR COURT KEVIN MCSWIGGAN : J.D. OF WATERBURY VS. : AT WATERBURY O’BRIEN INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC : JANUARY 24, 2024 MOTION TO REARGUE Pursuant to Practice Book §11-12, the undersigned requests the court to allow reargument and requests reconsideration of its order granting the defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony, docket entry #130.00 entered by the Honorable Carletha Parkinson on January 22, 2024, docket entry #130.10. The undersigned respectfully states that there are good arguments and a valid objection to the motion to preclude. As the court is well aware, discovery in this matter is ongoing and there have been motions relative to discovery which have been filed by the defendant and the plaintiff has responded to those and has submitted substantial supplemental compliance with the discovery requests, including tax returns for 2016 and 2017, which form the basis of the defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony. While the court is correct that an objection was not filed, mistakenly, it was the undersigned’s belief that this motion would not go forward without a hearing or be referred to the trial judge at the time of trial. Further, since supplemental discovery, including the tax returns, had been filed on January 9, 2024, the undersigned believed that the defendant would not move forward with the motion to preclude. COYNE, VON KÜHN, BRADY & FRIES, LLC 4 ARMSTRONG ROAD, SHELTON, CT 06484 * (203) 378-7100 * FAX (203) 378-7711 * JURIS NO. 419047 1 Trial in this matter is not scheduled until June 4, 2024. The undersigned is filing his objection to the motion to preclude along with this motion to reargue and requests that the court reconsider its decision and schedule argument relative to a motion to preclude. Determining a motion to preclude expert testimony without having a hearing or evaluating the testimony of the expert is extremely prejudicial to the plaintiff and the undersigned requests that the court allow this argument to proceed so as to allow the plaintiff to pursue the claim. As of January 9, 2024, the defendant was provided the tax returns which it cites as the main basis of the motion to preclude. However, more importantly, as is referenced in the objection, Attorney Vargas’ opinion as a former Commissioner of Workers’ Compensation as to the value of Mr. McSwiggan’s lost workers’ compensation claim is relevant and admissible. This expert was timely disclosed and was also deposed by defense counsel. Defense counsel never even made inquiry as to the formulation and/or basis of his opinion at said deposition. How can the defendant claim that said expert should be precluded without detailing the opinion already obtained. Accordingly, the undersigned requests relief from the court allowing this matter to be set down for an argument. THE PLAINTIFF KEVIN McSWIGGAN BY:___/s/406995________________________ Kevin S. Coyne Coyne, von Kuhn, Brady & Fries, LLC COYNE, VON KÜHN, BRADY & FRIES, LLC 4 ARMSTRONG ROAD, SHELTON, CT 06484 * (203) 378-7100 * FAX (203) 378-7711 * JURIS NO. 419047 2 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been E-filed with the court and sent via Electronic Mail only, this 24th day of January, 2024, to: Denise DeSole-Kennedy, Esquire DelSole & DelSole, LLP 46 South Whittlesey Avenue Wallingford, CT 06492 DDK@delsoledelsole.com LindaM@delsoledelsole.com BY:___/s/406995________________________ Kevin S. Coyne Coyne, von Kuhn, Brady & Fries, LLC COYNE, VON KÜHN, BRADY & FRIES, LLC 4 ARMSTRONG ROAD, SHELTON, CT 06484 * (203) 378-7100 * FAX (203) 378-7711 * JURIS NO. 419047 3