Motion-Secondary: IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC, D/B/A CENTRAL HYUNDAI v. MATTSON, BRENT

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                DOCKET NO.: WWM-CV21-6022016-S                        :       SUPERIOR COURT
                                                                             :
                       IRONHORSE AUTO, LLC d/b/a                             :       J.D. OF WINDHAM
                       CENTRAL HYUNDAI                                       :
                                                                             :
                       VS.                                                   :       AT PUTNAM
                                                                             :
                       BRENT MATTSON                                         :       DECEMBER 13, 2021

                                              OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
                                                        EXTENSION OF TIME (115.00)

                                The defendant, Brent Mattson, objects in part to the Plaintiff’s Second Motion for

                       Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery, dated December 13, 2021 (the “Plaintiff’s

                       Motion”).    That motion, if granted, will give the plaintiff a total of roughly four (4)

                       months to respond to the defendant’s first set of interrogatories and request for

                       production of documents.        (The discovery request was served on September 21, 2021; the

                       plaintiff seeks, through the Plaintiff’s Motion, an extension through January 18, 2022.)

                       That’s a lot of time – and so by this partial objection, the defendant requests an order that

                       the requested extension be a final extension.

                                An extension through January 18th isn’t problematic – but the plaintiff has made it

                       quite clear that there’s more to come.        In the Plaintiff’s Motion, at paragraph 4, the

                       plaintiff notes that the defendant has moved to strike part of the plaintiff’s Revised

                       Complaint; the hearing is scheduled January 10, 2022; and the court will thereafter have

                       120 days to issue its ruling.     Then at paragraph 5, the plaintiff notes the resulting

                       “uncertainty regarding the status of the Plaintiff’s Complaint,” which “may not be

                       resolved for several months.”
                                We can see where this is headed:         the plaintiff is laying the groundwork for

                       further time extensions, possibly for multiple months, based on the time that it takes for

                       the court to rule on the defendant’s Motion to Strike after the January hearing.

                                This is the defendant’s preemptive objection to those clearly signaled future

                       requests.   The defendant asks the court to draw a line in the sand now, so the plaintiff

                       can’t claim surprise or prejudice later.

                                Let us be clear.    The motion to strike is directed to only four (4) of the eight (8)

                       counts of the Revised Complaint.          Thus, no matter how the court rules on the Motion to

                       Strike, the case will remain pending.        The substantive allegations in the counts that are

                       the target of the MTS (2, 3, 4 and 5) are fully repled by reference in the plaintiff’s

                       CUTPA claim (count 8).         Thus, no matter how the court rules on the Motion to Strike, the

                       allegations of fact will remain in the case, and there is no good cause to delay discovery

                       about them.

                                The only “count-specific” discovery items that relate to the theories targeted in

                       the Motion to Strike relate to the plaintiff’s calculation of damage:            state and explain your

                       damages claim for Count Two, state and explain your damages claim for Count Three,

                       etc.  Presumably the plaintiff’s damage claim is what it is, and therefore the plaintiff can

                       and should be required to produce damages discovery notwithstanding the pendency of

                       the Motion to Strike.     (The defendant is confident that the plaintiff’s damage is zero, but

                       that is another argument for another day.)




                                                                            2
                                Wherefore, the defendant requests that if the Plaintiff’s Second Motion for

                       Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery is granted, the court’s order be styled as a

                       “final extension.”

                                                                            DEFENDANT,
                                                                            BRENT MATTSON


                                                                    By      403444
                                                                            William J. O’Sullivan
                                                                            O’Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC
                                                                            180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 210
                                                                            Glastonbury, CT 06033
                                                                            Phone: (860) 258-1993
                                                                            Fax: (860) 258-1991
                                                                            wosullivan@omjblaw.com
                                                                            Juris # 407344
                                                                            His Attorneys

                                                                CERTIFICATION

                                I hereby    certify  that  on  December     13,  2021,    a copy   of  the  above   was   or  will
                       immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically to all counsel and
                       self-represented    parties   of  record  and   that  written   consent   for  electronic   delivery   was
                       received    from   all  counsel    and   self-represented     parties  of  record    who    were   or  will
                       immediately be electronically served.

                                Service list:

                                John Wolfson, Esq.
                                Feiner Wolfson LLC
                                One Constitution Plaza
                                Hartford, CT 06103
                                jwolfson@feinerwolfson.com



                                                                                      403444
                                                                                      William J. O’Sullivan




                                                                            3