On May 14, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Jose Garcia,
and
Durham School Services, Limited Partnership,
Jean Constant,
for V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s)
in the District Court of Fairfield County.
Preview
DOCKET NO. FBT-CV-21-6106312-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
JOSE GARCIA : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
:
: AT BRIDGEPORT
V. :
:
DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, LIMITED : MARCH 8, 2024
PARTNERSHIP and JEAN CONSTANT :
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §13-14, Defendants, Durham School Services
(“DSS”) and Jean Constant (“Constant”) (hereinafter “Defendants”), by and through their
Attorneys, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, hereby object to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default and Sanction (No. 147.00). Plaintiff argues Defendants have failed to comply with
discovery despite Defendants’ repeated supplemental compliance, as recently as today, March 8,
2024 (No. 149.00). Plaintiff does not cite to any orders in its motion that Defendants have violated.
Plaintiff has moved for default and sought sanctions before on the very same grounds; i.e. seeking
video footage and photographs of the incident, and the Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion, as well
as denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and sanctions and finding Defendant has
complied with its discovery obligations (No. 141.00 and order No. 141.20). Parties have jointly
filed a case flow request, asking for an in-person hearing on the Plaintiff’s instant motion (No.
148.00). Counsel for Defendants is currently on trial in a case pending in the Complex Litigation
Docket in Waterbury and reserves the right to further supplement Defendants’ objections to
Plaintiff’s motion in advance of the in-person hearing. Defendants expressly do not waive their
right to further object by filing this preliminary objection.
294050406v.1
Respectfully submitted,
JEAN CONSTANT
By: /s/ 420360 _
Eric W. F. Niederer, Esq.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker, LLP
1010 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, Connecticut 06901
Telephone No.: (203) 388-9100z
Juris No. 412712
File No.:15798.00256
294050406v.1
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of this document was mailed or delivered electronically or non-
electronically on March 8, 2024, to all attorneys and self-represented parties of record and to all
parties who have not appeared in this matter and that written consent for electronic delivery was
received from all attorneys and self-represented parties receiving electronic delivery.
Law Offices of Michael E. Skiber
152 East Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06851
attys@skiberlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ 420360
Eric W.F. Niederer
Commissioner of the Superior Court
294050406v.1
Document Filed Date
March 08, 2024
Case Filing Date
May 14, 2021
Category
V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
DOCKET NO. FBT-CV-21-6106312-S : SUPERIOR COURT : JOSE GARCIA : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD : : AT BRIDGEPORT V. : : DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, LIMITED : MARCH 8, 2024 PARTNERSHIP and JEAN CONSTANT : DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §13-14, Defendants, Durham School Services (“DSS”) and Jean Constant (“Constant”) (hereinafter “Defendants”), by and through their Attorneys, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, hereby object to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default and Sanction (No. 147.00). Plaintiff argues Defendants have failed to comply with discovery despite Defendants’ repeated supplemental compliance, as recently as today, March 8, 2024 (No. 149.00). Plaintiff does not cite to any orders in its motion that Defendants have violated. Plaintiff has moved for default and sought sanctions before on the very same grounds; i.e. seeking video footage and photographs of the incident, and the Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion, as well as denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and sanctions and finding Defendant has complied with its discovery obligations (No. 141.00 and order No. 141.20). Parties have jointly filed a case flow request, asking for an in-person hearing on the Plaintiff’s instant motion (No. 148.00). Counsel for Defendants is currently on trial in a case pending in the Complex Litigation Docket in Waterbury and reserves the right to further supplement Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s motion in advance of the in-person hearing. Defendants expressly do not waive their right to further object by filing this preliminary objection. 294050406v.1 Respectfully submitted, JEAN CONSTANT By: /s/ 420360 _ Eric W. F. Niederer, Esq. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP 1010 Washington Boulevard Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Telephone No.: (203) 388-9100z Juris No. 412712 File No.:15798.00256 294050406v.1 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of this document was mailed or delivered electronically or non- electronically on March 8, 2024, to all attorneys and self-represented parties of record and to all parties who have not appeared in this matter and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self-represented parties receiving electronic delivery. Law Offices of Michael E. Skiber 152 East Avenue Norwalk, CT 06851 attys@skiberlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ 420360 Eric W.F. Niederer Commissioner of the Superior Court 294050406v.1