Preview
DOCKET NO. UWY-X06-CV17-5023922-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
JAMES E. BARBARA and : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY
LINA T. BARBARA : COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET
:
v. : AT WATERBURY
:
COLONIAL SURETY COMPANY : JULY 1, 2019
COLONIAL SURETY COMPANY’S OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF JAMES E. BARBARA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION BY DEFENDANT
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10, defendant Colonial
Surety Company (“Colonial”) hereby objects to the Plaintiff James E. Barbara’s (the “Plaintiff”)
First Set Of Interrogatories and Request For Production By Defendant, dated and certified as
served April 1, 2019, as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Colonial objects to the definitions and instructions set forth by the Plaintiff, to the
extent such definitions and instructions would impose upon Colonial burdens and
requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut
Practice Book Chapter 13, in responding and/or objecting to interrogatories and request for
production served pursuant to Practice Book §§ 13-6 and 13-9.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent it
imposes upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those
imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding
and/or objecting to interrogatories and request for production.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it
seeks the disclosure of information or documents presently within the knowledge or
possession of the Plaintiff James E. Barbara and/or the Plaintiff Lina T. Barbara
(collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) and/or their agents, servants, employees and/or attorneys
and/or which Plaintiffs can ascertain, obtain, compile, assemble and/or produce with greater
ease and facility than Colonial.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it
employs undefined, ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing
language, terms and phrases.
1
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it
seeks the disclosure of information or documents that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence in the prosecution or defense of the above-captioned
action, is overly broad, lacks specificity, is oppressive and unduly burdensome and/or is
irrelevant insofar as it calls for the production of documents or the recitation of facts that do
not relate to, concern, or are not likely to relate to or concern any relevant information.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory that seeks information not within the
possession or personal knowledge of Colonial, its agents, servants or employees.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it
seeks the production of documents or disclosure of information within the work-product
privilege, within the attorney-client privilege, within the privilege against disclosure of
settlement communications and/or negotiations, are communications made during the
course of or incidental to mediation which are protected from disclosure by Connecticut
General Statutes § 52-235d, or which are privileged as materials prepared in anticipation of
litigation, or fall within any other privilege recognized in law.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it
seeks disclosure of confidential and private business information, confidential proprietary
business information, competitively sensitive business information, trade and/or business
secrets and/or information the disclosure of which would threaten Colonial’s competitive
business advantage.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it
seeks the disclosure of information or documents which is to be later determined within the
judgment of counsel at the time of trial inasmuch as the mental impressions, conclusions,
opinions or legal theories of counsel are absolutely protected from disclosure.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent it seeks
the disclosure of information or documents compiled or to be compiled by experts retained
in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial and who are not presently expected to
be called as expert witnesses at trial and which are privileged against disclosure as attorney-
work product and/or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that
it seeks disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions or opinions of Colonial or its
representatives respecting the value or merit of the claims or defenses, or respecting
Colonial’s litigation and/or trial strategy or tactics.
Colonial objects to each interrogatory to the extent it improperly purports to include
a demand for the production of documents and thereby impermissibly combines an
interrogatory and a request for production in violation of Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-
6 and 13-9.
2
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
INSTRUCTIONS
2. In each of your answers to these Interrogatories, you are requested to provide not
only such information as is in your possession, but also information as is reasonably available. In
the event you are able to provide only part of the information called for by any particular
Interrogatory, please provide all the information you are able to provide and state the reason for
your inability to provide the remainder.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose upon
Colonial burdens and requirements beyond and in conflict with those imposed or required
by the Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding or objecting to
interrogatories and/or requests for production, in particular the foregoing instruction
purports to require Colonial to provide information, in responding to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories and requests for production, that is not within its knowledge, possession or
power and/or information regarding its inability to respond to certain disclosure requests,
which is wholly irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence in the above-captioned action.
DEFINITIONS
6. The term "Performance Bond" refers to the performance bond issued by Colonial
to Phoenix and Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC to cover the Subcontract on the Project.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “Performance Bond” to the
extent the definition asserts that the referenced Performance Bond was issued by Colonial
“to cover the Subcontract on the Project.” The portions of the definition to which Colonial
objects constitute superfluous factual information unnecessary to identify the Performance
Bond referred to and further contain legal conclusions concerning the purpose and import
of the same. For the purposes of interpreting and responding and/or objecting to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories and requests for production, Colonial understands the term “Performance
Bond” to mean and refer to Performance Bond No. CSC-216019, which is a written
instrument, the terms of which speak for themselves.
7. The term "Construction Manager" refers to the business entities that managed the
construction on the Project.
OBJECTION
3
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “Construction Manager”
because the same fails to name and specify any individual or business entity to which the
term “Construction Manager” refers, and therefore contains undefined, ambiguous, open-
ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, which
prevent Colonial from being able to fairly respond to any of Plaintiff’s interrogatories or
requests for production which seek the disclosure of information or documents, the subject
of which is the “Construction Manager.”
8. The term "Beacon" refers to Beacon Consulting Group, Inc., and any and all of its
officers, agents, representatives, employees, servants, consultants, engineers, architects.
subcontractors, investigators, attorneys, and any other persons or entities acting or purporting to
act on behalf of Beacon.
9. The term "McInerney" refers to James McInerney a former employee of Beacon
that was assigned by Beacon to investigate Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC's assertions
that Phoenix was in default of the Subcontract.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “McInerney” to the extent the
definition asserts that James McInerney “was assigned by Beacon to investigate Gotham
Greenwich Construction Co., LLC’s assertions that Phoenix was in default of the
Subcontract.” The portions to which Colonial objects constitute superfluous and erroneous
factual information and mischaracterizations which are unnecessary to identify the
individual referred to as “McInerney.”
10. The term "Gotham litigation" refers to Gotham Greenwich Co.. LLC v. Phoenix
Contracting Group, Inc., et al, Index number: 651937/2010, (Supreme Court, New York
County).
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “Gotham litigation” to the
extent the same contains incorrect information regarding the court action to which the term
“Gotham litigation” purports to refer. For the purposes of interpreting and responding
and/or objecting to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production, Colonial
understands the term “Gotham litigation” to mean and refer to that certain civil action
previously pending in the Supreme Court of the State of York, County of New York, titled
Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC v. Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc., Index No.
651937/2010.
4
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
12. The term "Complaint" refers to the Revised Complaint or any other preceding
complaints in this action.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “Complaint” to the extent the
definition purports to include multiple unspecified documents within the scope of the term
“Complaint,” rendering such definition and any interrogatories or requests for production
within which the term “Complaint” is used, vague, ambiguous, confusing and subject to
multiple interpretations. For the purposes of interpreting and responding and/or objecting
to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production, Colonial understands the term
“Complaint” to mean and refer to the Revised Complaint, dated November 20, 2018, filed in
the above-captioned action.
14. "Person", "Person", "people" and "individual" means any natural person, together
with all federal, state, county, municipal and other government units, agencies or public bodies, as
well as firms, companies, corporations, partnerships, proprietorships, joint ventures, organizations,
groups of natural persons or other associations, or entities separately identifiable whether or not
such associations or entities have a separate legal existence in their own right.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition to the extent the definition of “Person,”
“people” and “individual” differs from and/or are inconsistent with the definition of
“Person” provided in Practice Book § 13-1(c)(7) and which applies to all discovery requests
pursuant thereto.
15. "Document", "document", "documents", "documentation" and "writing means all
records, papers, and books, correspondence, emails, transcriptions, pictures, drawings or diagrams
or every nature, whether transcribed by hand or by some mechanical, electronic, photographic or
other means, as well as sound reproductions of oral statements or conversations by whatever means
made, whether in your actual or constructive possession or under your control or not, relating to
or pertaining to or in any way to the subject matters in connection which it is used and includes
originals, all file copies, all other copies, no matter how prepared and all drafts prepared in
5
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
connection with such writing, whether used or not, including by way of illustration and not by way
of limitation, of the followings; books; records; reports; contracts; agreements; expense accounts;
canceled checks; catalogues; price lists; video, audio and other electronic recordings; memoranda
(including written memoranda of telephone conversations, other conversations, discussions,
agreements acts and activities); minutes; diaries; calendars; desk pads; scrapbooks; notes;
notebooks; correspondence; drafts; bulletins; electronic mail; facsimiles; circulars; forms;
pamphlets; notice; statements; journals; postcards; letters'; telegrams; publications; inter- and
intra- office communications; Photostats; photographs; microfilm; maps; drawings; diagrams;
sketches; analyses; electromagnetic records; transcripts; and any other documents within
Colonial's possession, custody or control from which information can be obtained or translated, if
necessary, by detection devices into reasonably usable form, i.e. typed in English prose.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition to the extent the definition of “document,”
“documents,” and “documentation” differ from and/or are inconsistent with the definition
of “Document” provided in Practice Book § 13-1(c)(2) and which applies to all discovery
requests pursuant thereto.
Colonial further objects to the foregoing definition of the term “document” to the
extent the definition uses ambiguous, vague and/or or otherwise confusing language, in
particular, that portion of the definition which includes the phrase “relating to or pertaining
to or in any way to the subject matters in connection which it is used.”
16. "Communication", "communication" or "communications" means any and all
inquiries, discussions, conferences, conversations, negotiations, agreements, meetings, interviews,
telephone conversations, letters, correspondence, notes, telegrams, facsimiles, electronic mail,
memoranda, or other forms of communications, including but not limited to both oral and written
communications.
OBJECTION
6
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition to the extent the definition of
“Communication” and “communications” differ from and/or are inconsistent with the
definition of “Communication” provided in Practice Book § 13-1(c)(1) and which applies to
all discovery requests pursuant thereto.
18. "Relate to," "relating to," concerning," "pertain," and "pertaining to," mean
consisting of, referring to, reflecting or arising out of, evidencing or in any way legally, logically,
or factually connected with the matter discussed, directly or indirectly.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition because the same contains ambiguous,
open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, in
particular, the phrase “or in any way legally, logically, or factually connected with the matter
discussed, directly or indirectly.”
19. "Identify," "identifying," and "identification" when referring to a person mean to
provide and identification sufficient to notice a deposition of such person and to serve such person
with process to require his or her attendance at a place of examination and shall include, without
limitation, his or her full name, present or last known address, present or last known business
affiliation, home and business telephone number, title or occupation, each of his or her positions
during the applicable period of time covered by any answer referring to such person and
relationship, if any to the agency.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition/instruction because the same purports to
impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those
imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-1(c)(3) and 13-7 in responding to
interrogatories which request that Colonial “identify” a person, in particular, that Colonial
provide such person’s “present or last known business affiliation, home and business
telephone number, title or occupation, each of his or her positions during the applicable
period of time covered by any answer referring to such person and relationship, if any to the
agency” none of which are required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-1(c)(3).
Colonial further objects to the foregoing definition/instruction because the same
contains ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language,
terms and phrases, in particular, the phrases “sufficient to notice a deposition of such person
7
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
and to serve such person with process to require his or her attendance at a place of
examination,” the term “business affiliation,” and the phrase “if any to the agency.”
20. "Identify," "identifying," and "identification" when used in reference to a writing
or document mean to give a sufficient characterization of such writing or document to properly
identify it in a request to produce and shall include. without limitation, the following information
with respect to each such document:
a. The date appearing on such document, and if it has no date, the answer shall so state
and shall give the date or approximate date such document was prepared;
b. The identity or descriptive code number, file number, title or label of such
document;
c. The general nature and description of such document, and if it was not signed, the
answer shall so state and shall give the name of the person or persons who prepared it;
d. The names of the person(s) to whom such a document was addressed and the name
of each person other than such addressee to whom such document or copies of it, were given or
sent;
e. The name(s) of the person(s) having present possession, custody, or control of such
documents(s); and
f. Whether or not any draft, copy or reproduction of such document contains any
postscripts, notations, changes or addendum not appearing on the document itself, and if so, the
answer shall give the description of each such draft, copy or reproduction.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing definition/instruction because the same purports to
impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those
imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-1(c)(4) and 13-7 in responding to
interrogatories which request that Colonial “identify” a document, and is oppressive and
unduly burdensome, in particular, to the extent subsections a. through f. of the
8
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
definition/instruction purport to require Colonial to provide unnecessarily detailed and
irrelevant information about documents which are responsive to any interrogatory or
request for production.
21. In answering these interrogatories, Colonial is requested to furnish not only such
information as is available to Colonial but also such information as is known to any of Colonial's
agents, representative, employees, servants consultants, contractors, subcontractors, investigators,
attorneys, engineers, architects, and any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on behalf
of the agency.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose
upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed
or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-2, 13-7 and 13-8 in responding and/or
objecting to interrogatories, in particular the obligation to disclose information or
documents not in Colonial’s knowledge, possession or power, by purporting to require
Colonial to obtain and/or disclose information and/or documents known to or in the
possession of third-parties including Colonial’s “contractors, subcontractors, investigators,
attorneys, engineers, architects, and any other person or entity acting or purporting to act
on behalf of the agency.”
Colonial further objects to the foregoing instruction/definition because the same
contains ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language,
terms and phrases, in particular, the phrase “any other person or entity acting or purporting
to act on behalf of the agency.”
22. In any matter responsive to any of the interrogatories Colonial shall set forth
completely the grounds for any asserted privilege, along with the copies of the Privacy Act
provisions or other written materials upon which such assertion is made.
a. Colonial shall identify as to each privileged communication or document:
(i) Its date;
(ii) Its author(s);
(iii) The business title or position of its author(s);
(iv) Its recipient(s)
9
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
(v) The business title or position of its recipient(s);
(vi) The number of pages;
(vii) Its stated subject matter;
(viii) The legal basis upon which the agency claims privilege;
(ix) The specific portion of the interrogatory or document to which the communication
or document is responsive.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose
upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed
or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-3, 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding and/or
objecting to interrogatories and/or requests for production, and is oppressive and unduly
burdensome, in particular, to the extent the instruction purports to require Colonial to
provide information greater than and beyond that which is required by Connecticut Practice
Book §§ 13-3(d) and/or otherwise required by law to support a claim of privilege. Colonial
objects to the foregoing instruction/definition because the same contains ambiguous, open-
ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, in
particular, the phrase “the Privacy Act” and the instruction to provide information from
said undefined “Privacy Act.”
23. Documents are to be labeled to indicate the interrogatory to which they respond. In
order to simplify the issues and resolve as many matters of fact as possible before hearing, if,
following a reasonable and thorough investigation using due diligence, you are unable to answer
any interrogatory, or any part thereof, in full, because sufficient information is not available to
you, answer the interrogatory to the maximum intent possible, including any knowledge or belief
you have concerning the unanswered portion thereof and the facts upon which such knowledge or
belief is based. In addition, state what you did to located the missing information and why that
information is not available to you.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose
upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed
or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding and/or
10
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
objecting to interrogatories or requests for production, or in producing documents, in
particular, the purported instruction to label documents produced in response to
interrogatories – as opposed to requests for production --- through which Plaintiffs
improperly purported to make document production demands within such interrogatories
in violation of Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-6 and 13-9.
Colonial further objects this instruction because it is oppressive and unduly
burdensome, in particular, to the extent the instruction purports to require Colonial to do
more than disclose responsive, non-privileged documents in the same manner in which said
documents are maintained by Colonial in the ordinary course of business.
Colonial further objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to
impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those
imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding
and/or objecting to interrogatories, in particular, said instruction purports to require
Colonial to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories through reliance on estimation, speculation,
conjecture and sources other than Colonial’s own personal knowledge, and that said
instruction purports to require Colonial to provide detailed information regarding
information not in Colonial’s possession.
24. When an exact answer to an interrogatory is not known, state the best estimate
available, state that it is and estimate, and state the basis for such estimate.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose
upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed
or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7 and 13-8 in responding and/or objecting
to interrogatories, in particular, said instruction purports to require Colonial to respond to
Plaintiff’s interrogatories through reliance on estimation, speculation, conjecture and
sources other than Colonial’s own personal knowledge.
25. If documents once in your possession or under your control are requested or are the
subject of an interrogatory, and such documents are no longer in your possession or under your
control, state when such documents were most recently in your possession or under your control,
and what disposition was made of them, including identification of the person now in possession
of or exercising control over such documents. If the documents were destroyed, state when and
where they were destroyed, and identify the person or persons who directed their destruction.
OBJECTION
11
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose
upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed
or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding and/or
objecting to interrogatories or requests for production, in particular, this instruction is
oppressive and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require Colonial to provide
extensive and detailed information regarding documents which are not in Colonial’s
possession and said information is not necessary and material to the prosecution and defense
of the above-captioned action, such that this instruction purports to require Colonial to
provide immaterial and irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
NOTE
IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH
INTERROGATORY
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to the foregoing “Note” because the same does not constitute an
interrogatory which is properly made and served in accordance with Connecticut Practice
Book §§ 13-6.
Colonial further objects because the foregoing “note” is vague, ambiguous, overly
broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence in that use of the phrase “associated with each interrogatory” fails to
reasonably specify the subject-matter of any information sought by Plaintiffs in connection
with any of the following interrogatories.
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
2. State the name, address, and business telephone number of each person with
personal knowledge regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the happenings of the
occurrences referred to in:
(a) the Complaint and Answer (this action);
(b) the litigation that was commenced by Colonial against Phoenix which has been
consolidated with this matter ("New Haven litigation"):
(c) the Gotham litigation.
OBJECTION
12
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
Colonial objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it employs undefined,
ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and
phrases. In particular, the phrase “happenings of the occurrences” and the terms
“complaint” and “answer” are undefined, vague, ambiguous, confusing and lack specificity.
Colonial objects to this interrogatory because it employs undefined, ambiguous, open-
ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, in
particular, the phrase “happenings of the occurrences” is vague, ambiguous, meaningless,
and without reference to any particular factual subject-matter, such that interrogatory 2
fails to specify the nature or category of the information sought, the subject-matter of the
information sought through interrogatory 2 cannot be ascertained with reasonable clarity
and Colonial is prevented from being able to fairly ascertain what information might be
responsive.
3. State and describe in detail all evidence including documents, affidavits and/or
statements which you intend to rely, or submit at trial.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to this interrogatory because it seeks disclosure of mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of Colonial’s attorneys concerning
Colonial’s litigation and trial strategy and tactics in the above-referenced action.
Responsive information is being withheld on the basis of the foregoing stated
objection.
4. State the name, address and business telephone number for each person who would
be aware of the financial situation at Colonial and/or the actual breakdown of the kinds of surety
bonds Colonial has issued since 2008 to date.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to this interrogatory because it employs undefined, ambiguous, open-
ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases. In
particular, the term “financial situation” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and lacks specificity
to such an extent that interrogatory 4 fails to specify the nature or category of the
information sought, the subject-matter of the information sought through interrogatory 4
cannot be ascertained with reasonable clarity and Colonial is prevented from being able to
fairly ascertain what information might be responsive.
Colonial further objects to this interrogatory because in requesting an “actual
breakdown of the kinds of surety bonds Colonial has issued since 2008 to date” this
interrogatory seeks information wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims and defenses in the
13
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
above-captioned matter, is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in
temporal scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The information requested is not material to the subject matter of the causes of action alleged
in Plaintiffs’ Revised Complaint in the above-captioned action, namely, that Colonial
breached the General Indemnity Agreement (“Indemnity Agreement”) for which Colonial
was Indemnitee and Phoenix and Plaintiffs were Indemnitors, and acted in bad faith, and
breached the Performance Bond by allegedly: (a) defending itself in the Gotham Litigation
by filing an answer to Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC’s (“Gotham Greenwich”)
claim that Colonial breach the Performance Bond and by conducting discovery, and by
incurring costs and legal fees in connection therewith, instead of filing a pre-answer motion
to dismiss the claims alleged against Colonial by Gotham Greenwich in the Gotham
Litigation; (b) by conducting discovery instead of filing a motion for summary judgment
based on potential defenses to Gotham Greenwich’s claims, because Colonial allegedly
wanted to remain a defendant in the Gotham Litigation to stay in contact with Gotham
Greenwich in order to pursue a future business relationship with Gotham Greenwich; and,
(c) by settling all claims by all parties in the Gotham Litigation for itself and on Phoenix’s
behalf pursuant Colonial’s right under the Indemnity Agreement to act as Phoenix’s
attorney-in-fact to enforce Colonial’s rights to be indemnified and held harmless by Phoenix
and Plaintiffs.
Colonial further objects to the interrogatory to the extent that, in requesting
undefined “financial situation” information about Colonial, Plaintiff seeks disclosure of
Colonial’s confidential and private business information, confidential proprietary business
information, competitively sensitive business information, trade and/or business secrets
and/or information the disclosure of which would threaten Colonial’s competitive business
advantage, which is wholly irrelevant to the prosecution and defense of the above-captioned
action and which does not relate to or concern information having any relation to, or bearing
on, the causes of action asserted in Plaintiff’s Revised Complaint.
5. Has Colonial or Partners Re or anyone or any company affiliated with either
Colonial or Partners Re received any new surety business as a result of referrals from Gotham?
a) If yes, provide a copy of the bonds, bond application, set forth the amount of
money Colonial or Partners re earned from it.
OBJECTION
Colonial objects to this interrogatory to the extent it improperly purports to include
a demand for the production of documents and thereby impermissibly combines an
interrogatory and a request for production in violation of Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-
6 and 13-9.
Colonial further objects to this interrogatory/request for production to the extent that
it employs undefined, ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing
14
SL/235555/0002/1616135v1
07/01/19-HRT/SL
language, terms and phrases, in particular, the term “new surety business” is undefined,
vague, ambiguous, confusing and lacks specificity to such an extent that interrogatory 5 fails
to specify the nature or category of the information sought, the subject-matter of the
information sought through interrogatory 5 cannot be ascertained with reasonable clarity
and Colonial is prevented from being able to fairly ascertain what information might be
responsive.
Colonial further objects to interrogatory 5 because it is palpably improper to the
Preview
DOCKET NO. UWY-X06-CV17-5023922-S : SUPERIOR COURT : JAMES E. BARBARA and : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY LINA T. BARBARA : COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET : v. : AT WATERBURY : COLONIAL SURETY COMPANY : JULY 1, 2019 COLONIAL SURETY COMPANY’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF JAMES E. BARBARA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION BY DEFENDANT Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10, defendant Colonial Surety Company (“Colonial”) hereby objects to the Plaintiff James E. Barbara’s (the “Plaintiff”) First Set Of Interrogatories and Request For Production By Defendant, dated and certified as served April 1, 2019, as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Colonial objects to the definitions and instructions set forth by the Plaintiff, to the extent such definitions and instructions would impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book Chapter 13, in responding and/or objecting to interrogatories and request for production served pursuant to Practice Book §§ 13-6 and 13-9. Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent it imposes upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding and/or objecting to interrogatories and request for production. Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information or documents presently within the knowledge or possession of the Plaintiff James E. Barbara and/or the Plaintiff Lina T. Barbara (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) and/or their agents, servants, employees and/or attorneys and/or which Plaintiffs can ascertain, obtain, compile, assemble and/or produce with greater ease and facility than Colonial. Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it employs undefined, ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases. 1 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information or documents that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the prosecution or defense of the above-captioned action, is overly broad, lacks specificity, is oppressive and unduly burdensome and/or is irrelevant insofar as it calls for the production of documents or the recitation of facts that do not relate to, concern, or are not likely to relate to or concern any relevant information. Colonial objects to each interrogatory that seeks information not within the possession or personal knowledge of Colonial, its agents, servants or employees. Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it seeks the production of documents or disclosure of information within the work-product privilege, within the attorney-client privilege, within the privilege against disclosure of settlement communications and/or negotiations, are communications made during the course of or incidental to mediation which are protected from disclosure by Connecticut General Statutes § 52-235d, or which are privileged as materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, or fall within any other privilege recognized in law. Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it seeks disclosure of confidential and private business information, confidential proprietary business information, competitively sensitive business information, trade and/or business secrets and/or information the disclosure of which would threaten Colonial’s competitive business advantage. Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information or documents which is to be later determined within the judgment of counsel at the time of trial inasmuch as the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of counsel are absolutely protected from disclosure. Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent it seeks the disclosure of information or documents compiled or to be compiled by experts retained in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial and who are not presently expected to be called as expert witnesses at trial and which are privileged against disclosure as attorney- work product and/or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Colonial objects to each interrogatory and request for production to the extent that it seeks disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions or opinions of Colonial or its representatives respecting the value or merit of the claims or defenses, or respecting Colonial’s litigation and/or trial strategy or tactics. Colonial objects to each interrogatory to the extent it improperly purports to include a demand for the production of documents and thereby impermissibly combines an interrogatory and a request for production in violation of Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13- 6 and 13-9. 2 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL INSTRUCTIONS 2. In each of your answers to these Interrogatories, you are requested to provide not only such information as is in your possession, but also information as is reasonably available. In the event you are able to provide only part of the information called for by any particular Interrogatory, please provide all the information you are able to provide and state the reason for your inability to provide the remainder. OBJECTION Colonial objects to foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements beyond and in conflict with those imposed or required by the Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding or objecting to interrogatories and/or requests for production, in particular the foregoing instruction purports to require Colonial to provide information, in responding to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production, that is not within its knowledge, possession or power and/or information regarding its inability to respond to certain disclosure requests, which is wholly irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the above-captioned action. DEFINITIONS 6. The term "Performance Bond" refers to the performance bond issued by Colonial to Phoenix and Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC to cover the Subcontract on the Project. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “Performance Bond” to the extent the definition asserts that the referenced Performance Bond was issued by Colonial “to cover the Subcontract on the Project.” The portions of the definition to which Colonial objects constitute superfluous factual information unnecessary to identify the Performance Bond referred to and further contain legal conclusions concerning the purpose and import of the same. For the purposes of interpreting and responding and/or objecting to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production, Colonial understands the term “Performance Bond” to mean and refer to Performance Bond No. CSC-216019, which is a written instrument, the terms of which speak for themselves. 7. The term "Construction Manager" refers to the business entities that managed the construction on the Project. OBJECTION 3 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “Construction Manager” because the same fails to name and specify any individual or business entity to which the term “Construction Manager” refers, and therefore contains undefined, ambiguous, open- ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, which prevent Colonial from being able to fairly respond to any of Plaintiff’s interrogatories or requests for production which seek the disclosure of information or documents, the subject of which is the “Construction Manager.” 8. The term "Beacon" refers to Beacon Consulting Group, Inc., and any and all of its officers, agents, representatives, employees, servants, consultants, engineers, architects. subcontractors, investigators, attorneys, and any other persons or entities acting or purporting to act on behalf of Beacon. 9. The term "McInerney" refers to James McInerney a former employee of Beacon that was assigned by Beacon to investigate Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC's assertions that Phoenix was in default of the Subcontract. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “McInerney” to the extent the definition asserts that James McInerney “was assigned by Beacon to investigate Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC’s assertions that Phoenix was in default of the Subcontract.” The portions to which Colonial objects constitute superfluous and erroneous factual information and mischaracterizations which are unnecessary to identify the individual referred to as “McInerney.” 10. The term "Gotham litigation" refers to Gotham Greenwich Co.. LLC v. Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc., et al, Index number: 651937/2010, (Supreme Court, New York County). OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “Gotham litigation” to the extent the same contains incorrect information regarding the court action to which the term “Gotham litigation” purports to refer. For the purposes of interpreting and responding and/or objecting to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production, Colonial understands the term “Gotham litigation” to mean and refer to that certain civil action previously pending in the Supreme Court of the State of York, County of New York, titled Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC v. Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc., Index No. 651937/2010. 4 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL 12. The term "Complaint" refers to the Revised Complaint or any other preceding complaints in this action. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition of the term “Complaint” to the extent the definition purports to include multiple unspecified documents within the scope of the term “Complaint,” rendering such definition and any interrogatories or requests for production within which the term “Complaint” is used, vague, ambiguous, confusing and subject to multiple interpretations. For the purposes of interpreting and responding and/or objecting to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production, Colonial understands the term “Complaint” to mean and refer to the Revised Complaint, dated November 20, 2018, filed in the above-captioned action. 14. "Person", "Person", "people" and "individual" means any natural person, together with all federal, state, county, municipal and other government units, agencies or public bodies, as well as firms, companies, corporations, partnerships, proprietorships, joint ventures, organizations, groups of natural persons or other associations, or entities separately identifiable whether or not such associations or entities have a separate legal existence in their own right. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition to the extent the definition of “Person,” “people” and “individual” differs from and/or are inconsistent with the definition of “Person” provided in Practice Book § 13-1(c)(7) and which applies to all discovery requests pursuant thereto. 15. "Document", "document", "documents", "documentation" and "writing means all records, papers, and books, correspondence, emails, transcriptions, pictures, drawings or diagrams or every nature, whether transcribed by hand or by some mechanical, electronic, photographic or other means, as well as sound reproductions of oral statements or conversations by whatever means made, whether in your actual or constructive possession or under your control or not, relating to or pertaining to or in any way to the subject matters in connection which it is used and includes originals, all file copies, all other copies, no matter how prepared and all drafts prepared in 5 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL connection with such writing, whether used or not, including by way of illustration and not by way of limitation, of the followings; books; records; reports; contracts; agreements; expense accounts; canceled checks; catalogues; price lists; video, audio and other electronic recordings; memoranda (including written memoranda of telephone conversations, other conversations, discussions, agreements acts and activities); minutes; diaries; calendars; desk pads; scrapbooks; notes; notebooks; correspondence; drafts; bulletins; electronic mail; facsimiles; circulars; forms; pamphlets; notice; statements; journals; postcards; letters'; telegrams; publications; inter- and intra- office communications; Photostats; photographs; microfilm; maps; drawings; diagrams; sketches; analyses; electromagnetic records; transcripts; and any other documents within Colonial's possession, custody or control from which information can be obtained or translated, if necessary, by detection devices into reasonably usable form, i.e. typed in English prose. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition to the extent the definition of “document,” “documents,” and “documentation” differ from and/or are inconsistent with the definition of “Document” provided in Practice Book § 13-1(c)(2) and which applies to all discovery requests pursuant thereto. Colonial further objects to the foregoing definition of the term “document” to the extent the definition uses ambiguous, vague and/or or otherwise confusing language, in particular, that portion of the definition which includes the phrase “relating to or pertaining to or in any way to the subject matters in connection which it is used.” 16. "Communication", "communication" or "communications" means any and all inquiries, discussions, conferences, conversations, negotiations, agreements, meetings, interviews, telephone conversations, letters, correspondence, notes, telegrams, facsimiles, electronic mail, memoranda, or other forms of communications, including but not limited to both oral and written communications. OBJECTION 6 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL Colonial objects to the foregoing definition to the extent the definition of “Communication” and “communications” differ from and/or are inconsistent with the definition of “Communication” provided in Practice Book § 13-1(c)(1) and which applies to all discovery requests pursuant thereto. 18. "Relate to," "relating to," concerning," "pertain," and "pertaining to," mean consisting of, referring to, reflecting or arising out of, evidencing or in any way legally, logically, or factually connected with the matter discussed, directly or indirectly. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition because the same contains ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, in particular, the phrase “or in any way legally, logically, or factually connected with the matter discussed, directly or indirectly.” 19. "Identify," "identifying," and "identification" when referring to a person mean to provide and identification sufficient to notice a deposition of such person and to serve such person with process to require his or her attendance at a place of examination and shall include, without limitation, his or her full name, present or last known address, present or last known business affiliation, home and business telephone number, title or occupation, each of his or her positions during the applicable period of time covered by any answer referring to such person and relationship, if any to the agency. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition/instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-1(c)(3) and 13-7 in responding to interrogatories which request that Colonial “identify” a person, in particular, that Colonial provide such person’s “present or last known business affiliation, home and business telephone number, title or occupation, each of his or her positions during the applicable period of time covered by any answer referring to such person and relationship, if any to the agency” none of which are required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-1(c)(3). Colonial further objects to the foregoing definition/instruction because the same contains ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, in particular, the phrases “sufficient to notice a deposition of such person 7 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL and to serve such person with process to require his or her attendance at a place of examination,” the term “business affiliation,” and the phrase “if any to the agency.” 20. "Identify," "identifying," and "identification" when used in reference to a writing or document mean to give a sufficient characterization of such writing or document to properly identify it in a request to produce and shall include. without limitation, the following information with respect to each such document: a. The date appearing on such document, and if it has no date, the answer shall so state and shall give the date or approximate date such document was prepared; b. The identity or descriptive code number, file number, title or label of such document; c. The general nature and description of such document, and if it was not signed, the answer shall so state and shall give the name of the person or persons who prepared it; d. The names of the person(s) to whom such a document was addressed and the name of each person other than such addressee to whom such document or copies of it, were given or sent; e. The name(s) of the person(s) having present possession, custody, or control of such documents(s); and f. Whether or not any draft, copy or reproduction of such document contains any postscripts, notations, changes or addendum not appearing on the document itself, and if so, the answer shall give the description of each such draft, copy or reproduction. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing definition/instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-1(c)(4) and 13-7 in responding to interrogatories which request that Colonial “identify” a document, and is oppressive and unduly burdensome, in particular, to the extent subsections a. through f. of the 8 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL definition/instruction purport to require Colonial to provide unnecessarily detailed and irrelevant information about documents which are responsive to any interrogatory or request for production. 21. In answering these interrogatories, Colonial is requested to furnish not only such information as is available to Colonial but also such information as is known to any of Colonial's agents, representative, employees, servants consultants, contractors, subcontractors, investigators, attorneys, engineers, architects, and any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on behalf of the agency. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-2, 13-7 and 13-8 in responding and/or objecting to interrogatories, in particular the obligation to disclose information or documents not in Colonial’s knowledge, possession or power, by purporting to require Colonial to obtain and/or disclose information and/or documents known to or in the possession of third-parties including Colonial’s “contractors, subcontractors, investigators, attorneys, engineers, architects, and any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on behalf of the agency.” Colonial further objects to the foregoing instruction/definition because the same contains ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, in particular, the phrase “any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on behalf of the agency.” 22. In any matter responsive to any of the interrogatories Colonial shall set forth completely the grounds for any asserted privilege, along with the copies of the Privacy Act provisions or other written materials upon which such assertion is made. a. Colonial shall identify as to each privileged communication or document: (i) Its date; (ii) Its author(s); (iii) The business title or position of its author(s); (iv) Its recipient(s) 9 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL (v) The business title or position of its recipient(s); (vi) The number of pages; (vii) Its stated subject matter; (viii) The legal basis upon which the agency claims privilege; (ix) The specific portion of the interrogatory or document to which the communication or document is responsive. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-3, 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding and/or objecting to interrogatories and/or requests for production, and is oppressive and unduly burdensome, in particular, to the extent the instruction purports to require Colonial to provide information greater than and beyond that which is required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-3(d) and/or otherwise required by law to support a claim of privilege. Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction/definition because the same contains ambiguous, open- ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, in particular, the phrase “the Privacy Act” and the instruction to provide information from said undefined “Privacy Act.” 23. Documents are to be labeled to indicate the interrogatory to which they respond. In order to simplify the issues and resolve as many matters of fact as possible before hearing, if, following a reasonable and thorough investigation using due diligence, you are unable to answer any interrogatory, or any part thereof, in full, because sufficient information is not available to you, answer the interrogatory to the maximum intent possible, including any knowledge or belief you have concerning the unanswered portion thereof and the facts upon which such knowledge or belief is based. In addition, state what you did to located the missing information and why that information is not available to you. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding and/or 10 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL objecting to interrogatories or requests for production, or in producing documents, in particular, the purported instruction to label documents produced in response to interrogatories – as opposed to requests for production --- through which Plaintiffs improperly purported to make document production demands within such interrogatories in violation of Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-6 and 13-9. Colonial further objects this instruction because it is oppressive and unduly burdensome, in particular, to the extent the instruction purports to require Colonial to do more than disclose responsive, non-privileged documents in the same manner in which said documents are maintained by Colonial in the ordinary course of business. Colonial further objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding and/or objecting to interrogatories, in particular, said instruction purports to require Colonial to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories through reliance on estimation, speculation, conjecture and sources other than Colonial’s own personal knowledge, and that said instruction purports to require Colonial to provide detailed information regarding information not in Colonial’s possession. 24. When an exact answer to an interrogatory is not known, state the best estimate available, state that it is and estimate, and state the basis for such estimate. OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7 and 13-8 in responding and/or objecting to interrogatories, in particular, said instruction purports to require Colonial to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories through reliance on estimation, speculation, conjecture and sources other than Colonial’s own personal knowledge. 25. If documents once in your possession or under your control are requested or are the subject of an interrogatory, and such documents are no longer in your possession or under your control, state when such documents were most recently in your possession or under your control, and what disposition was made of them, including identification of the person now in possession of or exercising control over such documents. If the documents were destroyed, state when and where they were destroyed, and identify the person or persons who directed their destruction. OBJECTION 11 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL Colonial objects to the foregoing instruction because the same purports to impose upon Colonial burdens and requirements in conflict with and/or in addition to those imposed or required by Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7, 13-8 and 13-10 in responding and/or objecting to interrogatories or requests for production, in particular, this instruction is oppressive and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require Colonial to provide extensive and detailed information regarding documents which are not in Colonial’s possession and said information is not necessary and material to the prosecution and defense of the above-captioned action, such that this instruction purports to require Colonial to provide immaterial and irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. NOTE IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH INTERROGATORY OBJECTION Colonial objects to the foregoing “Note” because the same does not constitute an interrogatory which is properly made and served in accordance with Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-6. Colonial further objects because the foregoing “note” is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that use of the phrase “associated with each interrogatory” fails to reasonably specify the subject-matter of any information sought by Plaintiffs in connection with any of the following interrogatories. PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 2. State the name, address, and business telephone number of each person with personal knowledge regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the happenings of the occurrences referred to in: (a) the Complaint and Answer (this action); (b) the litigation that was commenced by Colonial against Phoenix which has been consolidated with this matter ("New Haven litigation"): (c) the Gotham litigation. OBJECTION 12 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL Colonial objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it employs undefined, ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases. In particular, the phrase “happenings of the occurrences” and the terms “complaint” and “answer” are undefined, vague, ambiguous, confusing and lack specificity. Colonial objects to this interrogatory because it employs undefined, ambiguous, open- ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases, in particular, the phrase “happenings of the occurrences” is vague, ambiguous, meaningless, and without reference to any particular factual subject-matter, such that interrogatory 2 fails to specify the nature or category of the information sought, the subject-matter of the information sought through interrogatory 2 cannot be ascertained with reasonable clarity and Colonial is prevented from being able to fairly ascertain what information might be responsive. 3. State and describe in detail all evidence including documents, affidavits and/or statements which you intend to rely, or submit at trial. OBJECTION Colonial objects to this interrogatory because it seeks disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of Colonial’s attorneys concerning Colonial’s litigation and trial strategy and tactics in the above-referenced action. Responsive information is being withheld on the basis of the foregoing stated objection. 4. State the name, address and business telephone number for each person who would be aware of the financial situation at Colonial and/or the actual breakdown of the kinds of surety bonds Colonial has issued since 2008 to date. OBJECTION Colonial objects to this interrogatory because it employs undefined, ambiguous, open- ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing language, terms and phrases. In particular, the term “financial situation” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and lacks specificity to such an extent that interrogatory 4 fails to specify the nature or category of the information sought, the subject-matter of the information sought through interrogatory 4 cannot be ascertained with reasonable clarity and Colonial is prevented from being able to fairly ascertain what information might be responsive. Colonial further objects to this interrogatory because in requesting an “actual breakdown of the kinds of surety bonds Colonial has issued since 2008 to date” this interrogatory seeks information wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims and defenses in the 13 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL above-captioned matter, is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in temporal scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information requested is not material to the subject matter of the causes of action alleged in Plaintiffs’ Revised Complaint in the above-captioned action, namely, that Colonial breached the General Indemnity Agreement (“Indemnity Agreement”) for which Colonial was Indemnitee and Phoenix and Plaintiffs were Indemnitors, and acted in bad faith, and breached the Performance Bond by allegedly: (a) defending itself in the Gotham Litigation by filing an answer to Gotham Greenwich Construction Co., LLC’s (“Gotham Greenwich”) claim that Colonial breach the Performance Bond and by conducting discovery, and by incurring costs and legal fees in connection therewith, instead of filing a pre-answer motion to dismiss the claims alleged against Colonial by Gotham Greenwich in the Gotham Litigation; (b) by conducting discovery instead of filing a motion for summary judgment based on potential defenses to Gotham Greenwich’s claims, because Colonial allegedly wanted to remain a defendant in the Gotham Litigation to stay in contact with Gotham Greenwich in order to pursue a future business relationship with Gotham Greenwich; and, (c) by settling all claims by all parties in the Gotham Litigation for itself and on Phoenix’s behalf pursuant Colonial’s right under the Indemnity Agreement to act as Phoenix’s attorney-in-fact to enforce Colonial’s rights to be indemnified and held harmless by Phoenix and Plaintiffs. Colonial further objects to the interrogatory to the extent that, in requesting undefined “financial situation” information about Colonial, Plaintiff seeks disclosure of Colonial’s confidential and private business information, confidential proprietary business information, competitively sensitive business information, trade and/or business secrets and/or information the disclosure of which would threaten Colonial’s competitive business advantage, which is wholly irrelevant to the prosecution and defense of the above-captioned action and which does not relate to or concern information having any relation to, or bearing on, the causes of action asserted in Plaintiff’s Revised Complaint. 5. Has Colonial or Partners Re or anyone or any company affiliated with either Colonial or Partners Re received any new surety business as a result of referrals from Gotham? a) If yes, provide a copy of the bonds, bond application, set forth the amount of money Colonial or Partners re earned from it. OBJECTION Colonial objects to this interrogatory to the extent it improperly purports to include a demand for the production of documents and thereby impermissibly combines an interrogatory and a request for production in violation of Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13- 6 and 13-9. Colonial further objects to this interrogatory/request for production to the extent that it employs undefined, ambiguous, open-ended, vague, unintelligible or otherwise confusing 14 SL/235555/0002/1616135v1 07/01/19-HRT/SL language, terms and phrases, in particular, the term “new surety business” is undefined, vague, ambiguous, confusing and lacks specificity to such an extent that interrogatory 5 fails to specify the nature or category of the information sought, the subject-matter of the information sought through interrogatory 5 cannot be ascertained with reasonable clarity and Colonial is prevented from being able to fairly ascertain what information might be responsive. Colonial further objects to interrogatory 5 because it is palpably improper to the