DOCKET NO.: X08-FST-CV-23-6063159-S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETER DOONEY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE CONYERS FARM CORPORATION,
`ERIC SOBEL, CHRIS BRANT, PAUL
`
`GLEASON, SCOTT PINKUS, SUSAN
`
`MAOUNIS, and ELIZABETH NEWMAN,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`STAMFORD/NORWALK
`
`AT STAMFORD
`
`COMPLEX LITIGATION
`DOCKET
`
`DECEMBER 9, 2024
`
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HIS
`MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
`
`Far from providing a basis to deny Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ Objection (and their
`
`sudden flurry of activity in the days leading up to and immediately after filing their Objection)
`
`confirms that nothing short of the threat of default will cause Defendants to finally fulfill their
`
`discovery obligations and bring this case to decision. Although the Objection contains many
`
`remarkable misstatements of what has happened in this case to date—misstatements that are not
`
`(and could not be) accompanied by any supporting documentation or attorney affidavit—more
`
`remarkable is what is not in dispute: Defendants have for months not complied with this Court’s
`
`discovery and scheduling Orders and continue to owe substantial discovery. As a result, today,
`
`only approximately one month before the close of fact discovery, Plaintiff has been able to take
`
`only one-half of one deposition (out of 7 Defendants and 5 of their third-party agents, all of whom
`
`are represented by Defendants’ counsel), Plaintiff still does not have adequate interrogatory
`
`responses from any Defendant, and Plaintiff still does not have a complete document production.
`
`Although Defendants seek to distract from their own failures by complaining about
`
`Plaintiff and his counsel, those complaints (which are inaccurate and lack merit, as set forth below)
`
`

`

`ultimately underscore the point of Plaintiff’s Motion: Notwithstanding diligent and persistent
`
`efforts by Plaintiff and his counsel, he has been unable to get Defendants to cooperate in discovery.
`
`That is not a reason to deny the Motion; it is a reason to grant it.
`
`Even more evidence in support of the Motion comes in the form of Defendants’ conduct in
`
`the days before and after they filed their Objection. Finally facing a serious consequence for their
`
`repeated discovery failures, Defendants scurried to do what the Court ordered them to do weeks
`
`and months ago. In the week between December 2 and December 9, Defendants: (1) confirmed
`
`four additional deposition dates (they had previously confirmed only one, even though the Court
`
`ordered Defendants to provide all of these dates by October 9); (2) provided an updated privilege
`
`log that the Court had ordered Defendants to produce by October 29; (3) provided a written chain
`
`of custody (for a now-missing laptop that potentially contains a highly relevant recording, but
`
`which Defendants inexplicably failed to preserve) that the Court had ordered Defendants to
`
`provide by October 15; and (4) provided interrogatory responses for Mr. Gleason and Ms. Maounis
`
`(which the Court had ordered due by November 4 and 18, respectively, with a warning that “No
`
`further extensions of time will be granted”). And in the Objection itself, Defendants promised
`
`even more compliance in the next two weeks. (See Obj. at 10, 11, and 14.)
`
`In short, this Motion got Defendants’ attention. The Court should keep their attention by
`
`granting the Motion and requiring them to complete discovery promptly so that their 2.5-year-long
`
`filibuster of the 78-year-old Plaintiff’s simple subdivision request can be brought to an end.
`
`1. Defendants’ Complaints about Plaintiff and His Counsel Are Wrong and Irrelevant.
`
`Unable to rebut the facts and arguments set forth in the Motion, Defendants spend much of
`
`their Objection trying to distract from their own failures by complaining about Plaintiff and his
`
`counsel. Notably, Defendants do not raise a single complaint regarding Plaintiff’s compliance with
`
`2
`
`

`

`his discovery obligations, nor have they ever. Rather, Defendants’ complaints center on Plaintiff’s
`
`dissatisfaction with Defendants’ conduct during discovery. None of these complaints about
`
`Plaintiff or his counsel bears on the issues raised in this Motion—whether Defendants have
`
`fulfilled their discovery obligations as required by the Practice Book and this Court’s Orders. And,
`
`in any event, none has merit.
`
`For one thing, many of these complaints are easily shown to be incorrect. For instance, the
`
`claim that Plaintiff “demand[ed] that Mr. Sobel appear for his deposition on . . . Monday,
`
`November 18, 2024,” leaving Mr. Sobel “no choice” but to move for a protective order is—as the
`
`Court has already seen in recent filings—contradicted by correspondence in which Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel wrote that it would consider an alternative date if Mr. Sobel proposed one. (See Dkt.
`
`##178.00 Exhibit B at 1, 179.00 at 3.) The Court denied Mr. Sobel’s Motion for Protective Order
`
`and sustained Plaintiff’s Objection to it (Dkt. ##178.01, 179.01), properly concluding that it was
`
`Mr. Sobel—not Plaintiff—whose position lacked merit.
`
`Similarly, Defendants’ assertion that “Plaintiff’s counsel made no mention of a date by
`
`which Defendants would consent to forensic examination of [the] computer” is at odds with the
`
`one exhibit Defendants attached to their Objection. (See Obj. Exhibit A at 5 (“We also discussed
`
`at the July meet and confer that you would . . . provide us with Mr. Leppla’s current laptop so that
`
`we could conduct a forensic examination to see if we could locate the lost recording.”).)
`
`And Defendants’ claim that “Plaintiff has confirmed he intends to require full days of
`
`depositions” (Obj. at 2) is likewise unsupported and untrue. Plaintiff has simply asked that
`
`witnesses be available for a full day in the event it is necessary, in line with ordinary practice and
`
`given the precious few days remaining in the case schedule.
`
`The list of inaccuracies—none of which are or could be supported by documentation or an
`
`3
`
`

`

`attorney affidavit—could go on. They are, however, ultimately irrelevant. In reality, Defendants’
`
`fundamental complaint with Plaintiff and his counsel seems to be that Plaintiff has insisted on
`
`Defendants’ compliance with their discovery obligations and this Court’s Orders. That is, in a
`
`word, true. Yes, Plaintiff has sought to achieve Defendants’ compliance through numerous emails
`
`and meet and confers, and also through two prior motions to compel (Dkt. ##122.01 & 129.01),
`
`and a motion to add granular interim compliance deadlines in the case schedule—deadlines that
`
`the Court ordered (Dkt. #167.01), but that Defendants largely ignored.1 And Plaintiff cautioned
`
`Defendants that, after their repeated non-compliance with the Court’s discovery Orders, a motion
`
`for sanctions appeared to be the only thing left to bring them into compliance. (Dkt. #180.00
`
`Exhibit F at 8 (October 12, 2024 email from Plaintiff’s counsel).) In sum, Plaintiff has done
`
`everything he can think of to obtain compliance from Defendants. But none of that has done the
`
`trick. Again, that is a reason to grant the Motion, not a reason to deny it.
`
`Nor can Defendants explain away their non-compliance by pointing to the breadth of
`
`Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Although Plaintiff has served a significant number of interrogatories
`
`and document requests on Defendants, the Court has already ruled on the first set of interrogatories
`
`and document requests at issue and found the vast majority of them to be appropriate (Dkt.
`
`##122.01, 129.01). Most of the discovery requests are directly tied to assertions Defendants made
`
`in their decisions denying Plaintiff’s subdivision requests (e.g., the supposed lack of historical
`
`“precedent” for such a subdivision, the supposed harm stemming from a “potential for
`
`simultaneous development”, the supposed absence of certain of Defendants’ corporate records,
`
`
`1 Defendants’ characterization of the modified Scheduling Order as a “quid pro quo” makes no
`sense. (Obj. at 4.) Plaintiff obtained no benefit from the modified scheduling order other than the
`expectation that the interim deadlines set forth therein would result in Defendants’ compliance
`with discovery. All of the deadlines sought to be extended were to address Defendants’ discovery
`deficiencies.
`
`4
`
`

`

`and the supposed “original intent” for Conyers Farm—all of which put the 40-year-history of
`
`Conyers Farm directly at issue), and all of the discovery requests are directly relevant to the claims
`
`and special defense in the case. Defendants also agreed that this case is sufficiently complex to
`
`belong on the Complex Litigation Docket, and the number of discovery requests Plaintiff has
`
`propounded is hardly unusual for a dispute pending on this docket, particularly one involving the
`
`disposition of a $20-plus-million property and millions of dollars in damages. (See Dkt. ##159.00
`
`(Plaintiff’s Appraiser Disclosure); 161.00 (Plaintiff’s Damages Expert Disclosure).) And there is
`
`nothing remotely unusual about Plaintiff’s wanting to depose the named Defendants and their
`
`agents who assisted them in the wrongdoing alleged.
`
`In sum, Defendants’ complaints about the scope of Plaintiff’s discovery requests are wrong,
`
`and they are also irrelevant given that the Court has already ordered Defendants to fulfill these
`
`requests. (See Dkt. ##122.01, 129.01, 167.01.)
`
`Nor is there anything to Defendants’ suggestion that Plaintiff has been overly
`
`picky. Although Defendants seek to minimize their deficiencies—asserting that the issue is merely
`
`that Plaintiff doesn’t “like” Defendants’ responses or that he wants Defendants to “continually
`
`update” their interrogatory verifications (to be clear, he doesn’t)—it is not a small problem that,
`
`with approximately one month remaining in discovery, Plaintiff still has 11.5 depositions to take,
`
`has been missing dozens of interrogatory responses from some Defendants entirely, is missing
`
`amended interrogatory responses from other Defendants who have agreed to (and were then
`
`ordered to) amend them, and cannot obtain a straight answer (except, it seems, until Defendants
`
`filed their Objection, see Obj. at 11) regarding whether Defendants have completed their review
`
`5
`
`

`

`and production of potentially responsive documents. In short, the deficiencies are significant, and,
`
`as the Court previously ordered, Defendants must remedy them.2
`
`2. Notwithstanding Defendants’ Last-Second Efforts to Remedy Some of Their Deficient
`Responses, Plaintiff’s Requested Order Remains Appropriate.
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion sparked a never-before-seen flurry of activity from Defendants. But that
`
`is yet another reason to grant the Motion, not a reason to deny it. Indeed, Defendants’ newfound
`
`interest in complying with discovery proves that the threat of sanctions is needed to achieve
`
`compliance.
`
`Take depositions as an example. Although Defendants seek to minimize the severity of the
`
`situation when they assert that, “at present,” Plaintiff has dates for three additional Defendants
`
`(Mr. Pinkus, Ms. Maounis, and Mr. Gleason) and one agent of the Defendant Corporation (Mr.
`
`Piro), here are the facts: The first time Defendants provided confirmed dates for Mr. Pinkus and
`
`Ms. Maounis was not until Monday, December 2, 2024. That was nearly two months after the
`
`October 9 deadline ordered by the Court, and just three days before Defendants’ Objection to this
`
`Motion was due. And, although Defendants wrote in their Objection that, “[a]t present, deposition
`
`dates have been provided for . . . [Defendant] Paul Gleason . . . and non-party Phil Piro,” (Obj. at
`
`13), this just wasn’t true. It was not until after Defendants filed their Objection and Plaintiff
`
`emailed Defendants asking for this information (Exhibits A, B) that Defendants first provided
`
`dates for Mr. Gleason or Mr. Piro.
`
`
`2 Defendants complain that Plaintiff’s Motion seeks to “poison the well” by discussing the “merits”
`of the case and “claimed bad behavior.” (Obj. at 4.) Not so. Plaintiff’s discussion of the governing
`legal standard and the relevance of the discovery sought to the merits of the case (see Mot. at 4–
`5) bears directly on this Motion because Plaintiff—like any other litigant—is required to show
`that the discovery sought “would be of assistance in the prosecution or defense of the action”.
`Practice Book § 13-2. As for Plaintiff’s recitation of Defendants’ conduct to date, the record
`submitted with the Motion speaks for itself. If Defendants believe that an honest accounting of
`their actions is prejudicial, then the issue is with their behavior, not Plaintiff’s Motion.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Defendants’ Objection thus attempts to give the erroneous impression that Defendants have
`
`been complying (or at least largely complying) all along. In reality, much of the progress
`
`referenced in their Objection occurred after this Motion was filed and within a few days of
`
`Defendants’ deadline to file their Objection (and, in some cases, even after Defendants filed their
`
`Objection). Defendants’ recent activity makes for four deposition dates in just three days, after
`
`more than a year of silence.3 Far from demonstrating good faith efforts to comply, what happened
`
`with Mr. Pinkus, Ms. Maounis, Mr. Gleason, and Mr. Piro shows the opposite: Defendants have
`
`not complied until they’ve felt extreme pressure to do so.
`
`The flurry of activity did not stop there, though. In the same December 5 email thread
`
`proposing dates for Mr. Gleason and Mr. Piro, Defendants: (1) provided the updated privilege log
`
`that Plaintiff had been seeking for months; (2) provided the written chain of custody for Mr.
`
`Leppla’s old laptop that Plaintiff had been seeking for months; and (3) advised that certain
`
`outstanding interrogatory responses for Ms. Maounis and Mr. Gleason—which were already
`
`untimely pursuant to the Court’s Order warning of “No further extensions”—had finally been made
`
`available to Plaintiff via electronic file sharing. (Exhibit B; see also Obj. at 12–15.) This episode
`
`shows that when they feel pressure, Defendants have no trouble complying.
`
`Defendants’ Objection also suggests that compliance might finally be forthcoming in a
`
`number of other areas, including: (1) amended interrogatory responses as required by the Court’s
`
`October 10, 2024 Order (Obj. at 10); (2) production of Board materials that were not previously
`
`produced (Obj. at 11); (3) a forensic examination of Mr. Leppla’s current laptop (a concession
`
`
`3 Defendants contend that Plaintiff should have simply “notice[d] these depositions for dates of
`[his] choosing”, rather than “demand the Defendants provide dates on which they were available.”
`(Obj. at 14.) Defendants omit the fact that Plaintiff served deposition notices for dates of Plaintiff’s
`choosing months ago (see Exhibit C), but these dates did not work for Defendants.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Defendants first made in an email on December 3, 2024, two days before their Objection was due)
`
`(Obj. at 11-12); and (4) identification of the documents that came from third-party files (Obj. at
`
`13), among other things.4
`
`Although Defendants’ promises provide Plaintiff with reason to be optimistic that
`
`compliance will finally be forthcoming, such promises—like those made by Defendants many
`
`times in the past—do not moot Plaintiff’s Motion. See, e.g., Johnson v. 480 Geary St., LLC, No.
`
`19-CV-02460-JSW, 2020 WL 12654453, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2020) (holding that plaintiff’s
`
`motion for sanctions was not moot even though defendants corrected their discovery non-
`
`compliance during the pendency of the motion, and sanctioning defendant for “flout[ing] all of the
`
`deadlines” in the case). Nor does the fact that Defendants have produced some discovery render
`
`Plaintiff’s requested sanction inappropriate. Indeed, in Spatta v. American Classic Cars, LLC, our
`
`Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s order of default even though the defendants complied
`
`with some document requests and interrogatories. 150 Conn. App. 20, 24 (2014). Similarly, in
`
`Forster v. Gianopoulos, our Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s order of default even though
`
`the defendants produced documents and attended depositions. 105 Conn. App. 702, 703–04
`
`(2008); see also Pupovic v. Diamond Tucker St. Prop., LLC, No. HHD-CV-22-6157379-S, 2023
`
`WL 7149159, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2023) (imposing a default even though defendant
`
`provided partial responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories). So too here, the relief Plaintiff seeks
`
`remains appropriate notwithstanding Defendants’ compliance with some discovery to date and
`
`their promises of future compliance.
`
`
`4 Defendants’ promises of forthcoming discovery contain vague caveats that make it unclear
`whether Defendants will meaningfully follow through. For example, Defendants commit to
`providing verified supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s first interrogatories, but only to the extent
`that “Defendants have not already done so based on their belief that sufficient [unverified]
`responses have been provided.” (Obj. at 10.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Furthermore, the recent flurry of activity hardly amounts to full compliance or a guarantee
`
`of continued compliance. For one thing, while Defendants represent in their Objection that
`
`document review and production is complete (Obj. at 11), this is not correct. In the first half of
`
`the very first deposition, Mr. Sobel disclosed that there were additional responsive documents in
`
`his possession that had not been produced, and those documents still have not been produced even
`
`though this issue was discovered more than three weeks ago. (See Dkt. #180.00 Exhibit S at 71:1-
`
`15 and Exhibit J at 1.)
`
`Similarly, although Defendants represent that deficiencies with respect to their responses
`
`to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Discovery requests have been addressed (Obj. at 15), this too is not
`
`correct. Rather, Defendants have only dug in their heels regarding their evasive and inscrutable
`
`answers, such as this one, responding to the simple question asking whether the Defendant
`
`Corporation knows, one way or the other, whether it still has copies of all of its Board minutes and
`
`resolutions from 1992:
`
`The Corporation cannot provide information regarding records that it does not
`possess and which may exist or may have existed at one time.
`
`(See Doc. # 180.00 Exhibit O, Interrogatory No. 15.) Plaintiff has no idea what that response
`
`means, though it sounds suspiciously like Defendants don’t know whether they still have all of
`
`their records but do not want to admit it (presumably because Defendants understand that would
`
`harm their defense).
`
`Moreover, notwithstanding the pending Motion, Defendants are now trying to stall expert
`
`discovery. On September 27, 2024, Defendants filed a purported disclosure of an affirmative
`
`expert witness (Dkt. #157.00), but the disclosure did not disclose any affirmative opinions and
`
`plainly does not comply with Practice Book § 13-4. Although Plaintiff raised this issue with
`
`Defendants by email and through a Court motion (Dkt. ##162.00, 163.00), to which Defendants
`
`9
`
`

`

`filed no response, Defendants still have not provided any affirmative opinion of this expert, have
`
`failed to produce any Practice Book § 13-4 materials for him, and have refused to confirm whether
`
`Defendants even still intend to call him. (See Dkt. #180.00 Exhibit F at 13 (September 30, 2024
`
`email from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the purported expert witness disclosure).) As a result,
`
`Plaintiff has had no ability to prepare any rebuttal even though the Court-ordered schedule called
`
`for the completion of rebuttal work last month.5
`
`In sum, though Defendants have very recently made efforts to finally comply with some
`
`aspects of discovery, and though they have now promised to do more, the fact that Defendants
`
`remain out of compliance and are obstructing other aspects of discovery means that the relief
`
`requested by this Motion is still necessary.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion and
`
`issue an Order advising Defendants that failure to bring themselves into compliance, within 15
`
`days, with their discovery obligations as articulated on page 19 of Plaintiff’s Motion,6 and/or
`
`further violations of Court-ordered deadlines, will result in a judgment of default. Plaintiff further
`
`respectfully requests that the Court grant his pending Motion regarding Defendants’ affirmative
`
`expert disclosure at Dkt. ##162.00 & 163.00, to which Defendants have filed no opposition.
`
`
`5 Defendants similarly failed to disclose any opinion of, or produce any Practice Book § 13-4
`materials for, their purported rebuttal expert witness. (See Dkt. #182.00; see also Exhibit D,
`Exhibit E.)
`6 In particular, the requirements that Defendants: (1) serve verified supplemental responses to
`Plaintiff’s first interrogatories; (2) produce all outstanding documents; (3) provide Mr. Leppla’s
`laptop for examination; (4) identify which documents came from third party files; (5) provide
`deposition dates for the Corporation, Ms. Newman, and Mr. Brant, and for all third parties
`represented by Defendants’ counsel (other than Mr. Piro, who has provided dates); and (6) provide
`supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s second interrogatories and production requests addressing
`the deficiencies set forth in Appendix A of the Motion, and provide responses from Mr. Brant.
`
`10
`
`

`

`By:
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`PETER DOONEY
`
`/s/ Matthew C. Brown, Esq.
`Matthew C. Brown, Esq.
`David Norman-Schiff, Esq.
`Jessica Puterman, Esq.
`WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
`265 Church Street
`New Haven, CT 06508
`Telephone: (203) 498-4400
`Facsimile: (203) 782-2889
`mbrown@wiggin.com
`dnorman-schiff@wiggin.com
`jputerman@wiggin.com
`Juris Number: 067700
`
`
`
`Nathan E. Denning, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
`437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 551-2630
`ndenning@wiggin.com
`
`Thomas McAndrew (pro hac vice)
`One Turks Head Place
`Suite 205
`Providence, RI 02903
`tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically on December 9,
`
`
`
`2024 to all counsel of record as follows:
`
`Jody N. Cappello, Esq.
`Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP
`CityPlace II
`185 Asylum Street
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Jody.cappello@fmglaw.com
`
`Barbara M. Schellenberg, Esq.
`Owen T. Weaver, Esq.
`Marino, Zabel & Schellenberg, PLLC
`657 Orange Center Road
`Orange, CT 06477
`BSchellenberg@mzslaw.com
`OWeaver@mzslaw.com
`
`Larry Reilly, Esq.
`The Reilly Law Firm LLC
`90 Grove Street, Unit 110
`Ridgefield, CT 06877
`larry@lreillylaw.com
`
`Judd Grossman, Esq.
`Grossman LLP
`745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
`New York, NY 10151
`jgrossman@grossmanllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Matthew C. Brown
` Matthew C. Brown
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Tesla, Brigid
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Jody Cappello <Jody.Cappello@fmglaw.com>
`Thursday, December 5, 2024 5:11 PM
`Denning, Nathan E.; Brown, Matthew; Puterman, Jessica; Norman-Schiff, David;
`tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com
`bschellenberg@mzslaw.com; oweaver@mzslaw.com; larry@lreillylaw.com
`Re: [EXTERNAL] DOONEY, PETER v. THE CONYERS FARM CORPORATION Et Al - X08-
`FST-CV23-6063159-S
`
`I stepped out but am sending them over to you later this evening.
`
`Jody Cappello
`Partner
`Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
`CityPlace II | 6th Floor | Hartford, CT 06103-3408
`D: 959-202-5265 | C: 203-915-2013
`Email: Jody.Cappello@fmglaw.com
`www.fmglaw.com | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook
`
`FMG
`LAW
`
`Freeman
`Ma 1 his e Gary
`\i'Vile,, r1 II ,._,c)LJ n S
`AZ | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA | IL | IN | KY | MA | NJ | NM | NV | NY | OH | PA | RI | TN | TX | WA
`Please read this important notice and confidentiality statement
`
`From: Denning, Nathan E. <NDenning@wiggin.com>
`Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 4:57:07 PM
`To: Jody Cappello <Jody.Cappello@fmglaw.com>; Brown, Matthew <MBrown@wiggin.com>; Puterman, Jessica
`<jputerman@wiggin.com>; Norman-Schiff, David <dnorman-schiff@wiggin.com>; tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com
`<tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com>
`Cc: bschellenberg@mzslaw.com <bschellenberg@mzslaw.com>; oweaver@mzslaw.com <oweaver@mzslaw.com>;
`larry@lreillylaw.com <larry@lreillylaw.com>
`Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] DOONEY, PETER v. THE CONYERS FARM CORPORATION Et Al - X08-FST-CV23-6063159-S
`
`Caution: This email originated from outside of the FMG organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
`you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
`
`Jody:
`
`Please point us to the correspondence where deposition dates for Mr. Gleason and Mr. Piro “have been provided”, as
`you represented to the Court. And please let us know what those dates are.
`
`Thanks,
`Nathan
`
`Nathan E. Denning
`
`1
`
`

`

`Wiggin and Dana LLP
`Office: (212) 551-2630
`Mobile: (513) 258-3637
`ndenning@wiggin.com
`
`From: Jody Cappello <Jody.Cappello@fmglaw.com>
`Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 4:21:16 PM
`To: Brown, Matthew <MBrown@wiggin.com>; Denning, Nathan E. <NDenning@wiggin.com>; Puterman, Jessica
`<jputerman@wiggin.com>; Norman-Schiff, David <dnorman-schiff@wiggin.com>; tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com
`<tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com>
`Cc: bschellenberg@mzslaw.com <bschellenberg@mzslaw.com>; oweaver@mzslaw.com <oweaver@mzslaw.com>;
`larry@lreillylaw.com <larry@lreillylaw.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] DOONEY, PETER v. THE CONYERS FARM CORPORATION Et Al - X08-FST-CV23-6063159-S
`
`Attached find Objection just filed.
`
`Jody Cappello
`Partner
`Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
`CityPlace II | 6th Floor | Hartford, CT 06103-3408
`D: 959-202-5265 | C: 203-915-2013
`Email: Jody.Cappello@fmglaw.com
`www.fmglaw.com | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook
`
`AZ | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA | IL | IN | KY | MA | NJ | NM | NV | NY | OH | PA | RI | TN | TX | WA
`Please read this important notice and confidentiality statement
`
`This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected under
`applicable law from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic mail or its contents
`(including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
`please notify the sender or Wiggin and Dana LLP at 203-498-4400 immediately and then delete the original message (including any
`attachments) in its entirety. We take steps to protect against viruses and other malicious code but advise you to carry out your own checks and
`precautions as we accept no liability for any which remain. We may monitor electronic mail sent to and from our server(s) to ensure regulatory
`compliance to protect our clients and business.
`
`Disclosure under U.S. IRS Circular 230: Wiggin and Dana LLP informs you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
`attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting,
`marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
`
`WD03262012
`
`2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`From:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Jody Cappello
`Denning, Nathan E.; Norman-Schiff, David; Brown, Matthew; Puterman, Jessica;
`tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com
`Barbara Schellenberg; Larry Reilly
`[EXTERNAL] Re: Dooney v. Conyers Farm - Discovery Items
`Thursday, December 5, 2024 7:34:26 PM
`image001.png
`Image.png
`
`WARNING! External email. Do not click/open unexpected links/attachments.
`I was just advised that I am also not available the weekend of 12/14 and 12/15.
`
`Jody Cappello​​​​
`Partner
`Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
`CityPlace II | 6th Floor | Hartford, CT 06103‑3408
`D: 959-202-5265 | C: 203‑915‑2013
`Email: Jody.Cappello@fmglaw.com
`www.fmglaw.com | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook
`
`FMG
`LAW
`
`Freeman
`Mathis._ Gary
`When It Counts
`AZ | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA | IL | IN | KY | MA | NJ | NM | NV | NY | OH | PA | RI | TN | TX | WA
`Please read this important notice and confidentiality statement
`
`From: Jody Cappello
`Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 6:45:07 PM
`To: Denning, Nathan E. <NDenning@wiggin.com>; Norman-Schiff, David <dnorman-
`schiff@wiggin.com>; Brown, Matthew <MBrown@wiggin.com>; Puterman, Jessica
`<jputerman@wiggin.com>; tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com <tmcandrew@tjmcandrewlaw.com>
`Cc: Barbara Schellenberg <bschellenberg@mzslaw.com>; Larry Reilly <larry@lreillylaw.com>
`Subject: Dooney v. Conyers Farm - Discovery Items
`
`Good evening –
`
`Attached is an updated Privilege Log. After further discussion and in light of Mr. Sobel’s
`deposition testimony, we have removed the conversation with the land architect as a
`conversation listed on the log.
`
`With respect to the chain of custody of Mr. Leppla’s laptop: It was provided to Westford’s
`Director of IT, Darren Ignatowicz. The hard drive was removed from the system and wiped per
`Department of Defense standards. Both the system and the hard drive were sent separately to
`BDSDoc for recycling in 2023.
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Phil Piro is available for his deposition on the afternoon January 13. Should it be necessary, he
`can continue his deposition on the afternoon of January 17 or afternoon of January 20.
`
`Liz Newman resides in or near Miami, Florida. She has not reconfirmed her availability but she
`previously indicated she was generally free other than around the holidays. I assume it might
`make sense to take her around the same time as Ms. Maounis so if that is your preference I
`can suggest those dates to her.
`
`It is my understanding that Dr. Gleason is available on most weekend days but I would assume
`not around the holidays. He did not believe he had pressing commitments and has no
`immediate travel plans. I could be unavailable certain weekend days due to childcare
`obligations, and for that reason Sunday may even be better than Saturday. I am unavailable
`1/4 and 1/5.
`
`Patty Coleman is no longer employed by Westford Management.
`
`The verified responses to Susan Maounis’ discovery requests have been uploaded to the
`sharefile. Dr. Gleason’s responses have been uploaded and I am awaiting receipt of his
`notarized verification.
`
`
`Jody Cappello​​​​
`Partner
`Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
`CityPlace II | 6th Floor | Hartford, CT 06103‑3408
`D: 959-202-5265 | C: 203‑915‑2013
`Email: Jody.Cappello@fmglaw.com
`www.fmglaw.com | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook
`
`AZ | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA | IL | IN | KY | MA | NJ | NM | NV | NY | OH | PA | RI | TN | TX | WA
`Please read this important notice and confidentiality statement
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: FST-CV-23-6063159-S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETER DOONEY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE CONYERS FARM CORPORATION,
`ERIC SOBEL, CHRIS BRANT, PAUL
`
`GLEASON, SCOTT PINKUS, SUSAN
`
`MAOUNIS, and ELIZABETH NEWMAN,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`STAMFORD/NORWALK
`
`AT STAMFORD
`
`OCTOBER 31, 2023
`
`
`NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`
`
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Practice Book § 13-26 et seq., the plaintiff,
`
`Peter Dooney, by and through his undersigned counsel, will take the deposition of Chris Brant
`
`at Wiggin and Dana LLP, One Century Tower, 265 Church Street, 17th Floor, New Haven,
`
`CT 06510 on January 18, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. before a notary public or other authorized officer.
`
`Said deposition will be stenographically recorded and will continue from day-to-day until
`
`completed. You are invited to attend and cross-examine the witness at that time.
`
`By:
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`PETER DOONEY
`
` /s/ Matthew C. Brown
`Matthew C. Brown, Esq.
`Joshua N. Taylor, Esq.
`WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
`265 Church Street
`New Haven, CT 06508
`Telephone: (203) 498-4400
`Facsimile: (203) 782-2889
`mbrown@wiggin.com
`jtaylor@wiggin.com
`Juris Number: 067700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Nathan E. Denning, Esq. (pro hac vice to be filed)
`WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
`437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 551-2630
`ndenning@wiggin.com
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the fo