5-13-11 Motion for Protective Order (2).pdf - Blogs.courant.com

COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET
SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL LITIGATION
DOCKET NO.: STF-CV-08-500855 1-S : SUPERIOR COURT
TIM DOE #1 : COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET
VS. : AT WATERBURY
SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL ANI)
MEDICAL CENTER : MAY 13, 2011
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-5. the plaintiff respectfully moves for a protective
order to prevent the defendant from taking any further depositions in this matter. In support of
this motion the plaintiff relies on the thoughtful and cogent reasons expressed by the defendant,
St. Francis. in its own Motion for Protective Order and Memorandum in Support dated May 11.
2011. (EntryNo. 196,00)
By way of background. the plaintiff had issued a notice of deposition of Thomas Godar.
M.D. to take place on Monday May 16. 2011 at defense counsel’s Hartford office. The
deposition was noticed tor that date so as to not interfere with jury selection of this matter which
is scheduled to commence on May 24, 2011.
TREM0NT & SHELDON P. C.
64 Loo TEoACE • B ooEpo0 CoNooCncu 06604 ‘ 2O31 335-5145 Juos No, 064460

The defendant, via a Motion for Protective Order, objected to that Notice of Deposition
and set forth four reasons: 1. The Applicable Discovery Deadline has Passed; 2. Discovery is
Stayed Until Thirty Days Following Verdict: 3. Fifteen Days’ Notice is Required; and 4, The
Proposed Deposition Would Impose an Undue Hardship on the Witness and the Defendant. As
to the Fourth reason. St. Francis argued at page 4 of its brief that. To require St. Francis
simultaneously to prepare for and to conduct that jury selection and trial while also preparing for
and attending the deposition of Dr. Godar would be unduly burdensome to St. Francis, which
therefore requests that the deposition of Dr. Godar be stayed until the conclusion of the Tim Doe
Case.”
The plaintiff agrees with the defense that it is unduly burdensome for I)ay Pitney and its
350 lawyers located in nine different offices to he subjected to trying the case and to taking
depositions.
Interestingly, only one day after filing its Motion for Protective Order, the defense sent an
email indicating that they were going to be issuing a Notice of Deposition for the plaintiff’s sister
who resides in Middlehurv. VT and of a work colleague of the plaintiff for dates when jury
selection is actually being conducted. Certainly, the taking of depositions can not he a one wa
street. If the defense is unable to defend a deposition before jury selection even begins, it can not
be allowed to take depositions during jury selection.
T5-EMONT & SHELDON P. C.
54 L.. TEr 05604 203 335545 N 064450

Further, plaintiffs counsel can not be taking and defending depositions once jury selection
has begun. Although the defense initially raised taking these two depositions a few months ago,
they never followed through until this point, presumably because they were on trial in the John
Roe #2 case, which is a reasonable position for St. Francis to take, However, now it is the
plaintiff Tim Doe #1 who is on trial and to subject him to taking depositions during jury selection
is patently unfair and unduly burdensome.
THE PLAINTIFF,
BY_______________________
Douglas P. Mahoney
Trernont & Sheldon
TREMONT & SHELDON P. C.
64 LyoN TyNRACy EL pony CoNNEcTcur 06604 (203) 33EL5145 • Juyy No, 064460

ORDER
The foregoing Motion is hereby GRANTED / DENIED.
______________
BY
Judge / Clerk
TREMONT & SHELDON R C.
64 LYoN TooAcE BornorpoRT CONNYOr NUT 06604 (2O3 3355I45 JURo No 064460

CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage pre-paid. to:
Michelle Courchaine - MCourchaine kou-law .com
Richard J. Kenny -
Paul D. Williams — pyjlliamsdgypjtflgy.cop3
James H, Rotondo
Ernest J. Mattei gjgeidaypjtnçy.com
Michael P. Shea — mpsheadaypitney.com
Kathy Cohun çincdgyitney.coi
—
MarciaOrtiz—mpiz@vitv.co
Douglas P. Mahoney
TREMONT & SHELDON R C,
64 LYoN TNNNCN BNDGNPON CONNECflCU 06604 203) 335 5145 Juos No 064460