STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: HHD-CV22-6163464-S
`
`:
`
` :
` :
`DANIEL FARIAS, for himself and
`
`:
`other similarly situated employees
`:
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`HARTFORD
`
`
`
`AT HARTFORD
`
`
`
`APRIL 20, 2023
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ESAUL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 110.00 SEEKING
`ADJUDICATION OF DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY
`
`
`I, Michael Petela, hereby swear and attest as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs sent written discovery requests to the Defendants on January 31, 2023,
`
`such that responses were due on Monday, April 3, 2023. Plaintiff further issued
`
`deposition notices to Defendants’ witnesses on that date, scheduling the depositions out
`
`into mid-June of 2023.
`
`2.
`
`The discovery requests are all virtually identical to requests which this Court has
`
`issued orders compelling production in numerous tip credit actions before the complex
`
`litigation docket. Boytchev v. Hawli, X07-HHD-CV21-6142550-S, [Dkt. 114.00, 114.86]
`
`(overruling objections after filing of motion to compel production of same information in
`
`response to same discovery requests) (Noble, J.); Guerrera v. Harper, X07-HHD-CV21-
`
`6143418-S, [122.00, 122.86] (overruling objections to same discovery requests) (Noble,
`
`J.). Other judges hold the same. See Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC, X03-HHD-CV-17-
`
`6088349-S, [120.00] at *5 (Apr. 2, 2018) (Moll, J.) (awarding of the class list for same
`
`−1−
`
`
`
`
`

`

`interrogatory prior to class certification of E4 claims because “[b]ased on the nature of
`
`plaintiff’s claims, the contact information of the putative class is unquestionably relevant
`
`to plaintiff’s efforts to obtain class certification.”); Moreland v. C&L Diners, LLC, X07-
`
`HHD-CV19-6113453-S [121.00, 121.86] (granting motion to compel production for
`
`same discovery requests) (Schuman, J.).
`
`3.
`
`Despite that this court has in the past compelled production with respect to all the
`
`Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Defendants objected without answering any discovery
`
`request at all [Dkt. 109.00].
`
`4.
`
`On April 3, 2023, this court issued an order stating, “no motions or objections
`
`regarding discovery will be considered by the court unless an affidavit is simultaneously
`
`filed with the Request for Adjudication indicating that counsel have made good faith
`
`efforts to resolve the dispute. Prior to the filing of this affidavit, the parties must meet and
`
`confer to attempt in good faith to resolve their discovery dispute. Any such motion or
`
`objection for which such affidavit is not filed will be summarily denied or overruled.”
`
`5.
`
`On or about April 4, 2022, the undersigned held a discovery conference with
`
`opposing counsel Maria Rapp where it was confirmed that the parties are at impasse as to
`
`discovery issues; Defendants confirmed they will not supply the discovery sought
`
`without an order compelling them to do so because of their objections, and the reasons set
`
`forth in their motion to stay the proceedings. The meeting, conducted in good faith, was
`
`concluded with the parties agreeing that Plaintiff would file an affidavit of
`
`noncompliance, and that a request for adjudication of Defendants’ objections would be
`
`filed on the complex litigation docket.
`
`
`
`
`−2−
`
`

`

`6.
`
`Defendants' latest position (attached communication - Exhibit A) is that
`
`adjudication of Defendants' objections is premature in light of Defendants' motion to
`
`stay. 1 Plaintiff contends that a motion to stay is not a proper discovery objection, but
`
`regardless, pursuant to the discovery conference held April 4, 2023, Defendants are
`
`unwilling to stand down on their class-wide discovery objections anyway i.e. even if
`
`the motion to stay is denied.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff therefore submits this affidavit with a request for adjudication so that the
`
`Court might adjudicate Defendants' objections, and if the Court agrees, issue an order
`
`compelling Defendants to produce the discovery responsive to the Plaintiff's requests
`
`(and deposition dates for their witnesses) by a date certain.
`
`By:
`
`Michael Petela appeared before me by remote video conference and st
`affidavit on this day of April 20, 2023 .
`
`Notary Public/
`Commissioner Superior Court
`
`Plaintiff yesterday filed an objection to Defendants' motion to stay proceedings which is virtually identical
`to the objections to motions to stay filed in Fenton v. Harper, et al., X07-HHD-CV22-6 I 64909-S [ 131 .00]. and
`Woodfordv. HRG Management, LLC, et al., X07-HHD-CV22-6164908-S [131.00]. In each ofthose cases, the
`defendants have filed a reply and a request for adjudication.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the above was or will immediately be mailed or delivered
`
`electronically or non-electronically on April 20, 2023 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.
`
`
`Eliot B. Gersten
` James T. Shearin
`Ryan A. O’Donnell
`Maria Rapp
`Pullman & Comley, LLC
`90 State House Square
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel: (860) 424-4300
`Fax: (860) 424-4370
`egersten@pullcom.com
`jtshearin@pullcom.com
`mrapp@pullcom.com
`rodonnell@pullcom.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael Petela
`Michael Petela
`
`
`
`−4−
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Michael Petela, Jr.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Michael Petela, Jr.
`Thursday, April 20, 2023 1:39 PM
`Shearin, James T.; Gersten, Eliot B.; Rapp, Maria; O'Donnell, Ryan A.
`Thomas Durkin; Ellen Wallin; Richard Hayber
`RE: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
`Tim,
`
`Thanks, I understand your position, but simply filing a motion to stay is not a proper discovery objection (as I believe
`Judge Noble tersely explained to Joshua Hawks-Ladds in Boytchev or White). But per my conversation with Maria on
`4/4/23, Defendants are unwilling to stand down on their class-wide discovery objections anyway i.e. even if the motion
`to stay is denied (just as the restaurants your firm represents have refused in other cases. I’ll file the affidavit re:
`discovery conference and will attach this chain as an exhibit so your position is clear.
`
`Thank you for the prompt responses, and have a good afternoon.
`
`Best,
`
`
`
`Michael T. Petela, Jr.
`Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC
`
`
`From: Shearin, James T. <jtshearin@pullcom.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 11:38 AM
`To: Michael Petela, Jr. <mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com>; Gersten, Eliot B. <EGersten@PULLCOM.COM>; Rapp, Maria
`<MRapp@pullcom.com>; O'Donnell, Ryan A. <rodonnell@pullcom.com>
`Cc: Thomas Durkin <tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com>; Ellen Wallin <ellen@hayberlawfirm.com>; Richard Hayber
`<rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Subject: RE: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
` I
`
` disagree they are separate; I think they are inextricably intertwined. That said, we will be
`getting our reply on file as soon as we can because I hope we all agree that it makes sense to
`argue all of these cases together. That will not be tomorrow but more likely early next
`week. You can then file your surrebuttal immediately and the issue will be joined.
`
`
`James T. (Tim) Shearin, Esq.
`Pullman & Comley LLC
`T 203 330 2240 • jtshearin@pullcom.com
`
`THIS MESSAGE AND ANY OF ITS ATTACHMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, OR THE RECIPIENT’S DESIGNEE, AND
`MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE (1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY
`PULLMAN & COMLEY ABOUT THE RECEIPT BY TELEPHONING (203) 330-2000; (2) DELETE ALL COPIES OF THE MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS; AND (3) DO
`
`NOT DISSEMINATE OR MAKE ANY USE OF ANY OF THEIR CONTENTS.
`From: Michael Petela, Jr. <mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 11:18 AM
`
`1
`
`

`

`To: Shearin, James T. <jtshearin@pullcom.com>; Gersten, Eliot B. <EGersten@PULLCOM.COM>; Rapp, Maria
`<MRapp@pullcom.com>; O'Donnell, Ryan A. <rodonnell@pullcom.com>
`Cc: Thomas Durkin <tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com>; Ellen Wallin <ellen@hayberlawfirm.com>; Richard Hayber
`<rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Subject: RE: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
`
`The issues of the objection are separate from the Motion to Stay, but let’s tee them both up for the court then. Your
`reply is already written and filed in Fenton/Woodford. Can you file/re-file by the end of business today? Tomorrow?
`
`
`
`Michael T. Petela, Jr.
`Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC
`
`
`From: Shearin, James T. <jtshearin@pullcom.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 11:03 AM
`To: Michael Petela, Jr. <mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com>; Gersten, Eliot B. <EGersten@PULLCOM.COM>; Rapp, Maria
`<MRapp@pullcom.com>; O'Donnell, Ryan A. <rodonnell@pullcom.com>
`Cc: Thomas Durkin <tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com>; Ellen Wallin <ellen@hayberlawfirm.com>; Richard Hayber
`<rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Subject: RE: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
`Mike, I don’t disagree that the objections need to be adjudicated at some point, but until the
`motion to stay is decided, it is an unnecessary obligation imposed upon the court. As I believe
`our objections make clear and you and Maria discussed, if the motion to stay were to be
`denied, some of the objections can be resolved -- a discussion that has not yet been
`undertaken. In short, I think the request is premature which his why we object.
`
`
`James T. (Tim) Shearin, Esq.
`Pullman & Comley LLC
`T 203 330 2240 • jtshearin@pullcom.com
`
`THIS MESSAGE AND ANY OF ITS ATTACHMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, OR THE RECIPIENT’S DESIGNEE, AND
`MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE (1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY
`PULLMAN & COMLEY ABOUT THE RECEIPT BY TELEPHONING (203) 330-2000; (2) DELETE ALL COPIES OF THE MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS; AND (3) DO
`
`NOT DISSEMINATE OR MAKE ANY USE OF ANY OF THEIR CONTENTS.
`From: Michael Petela, Jr. <mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 10:30 AM
`To: Shearin, James T. <jtshearin@pullcom.com>; Gersten, Eliot B. <EGersten@PULLCOM.COM>; Rapp, Maria
`<MRapp@pullcom.com>; O'Donnell, Ryan A. <rodonnell@pullcom.com>
`Cc: Thomas Durkin <tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com>; Ellen Wallin <ellen@hayberlawfirm.com>; Richard Hayber
`<rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Subject: Re: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
`
`Thanks Tim.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`I believe in my conference with Maria, she agreed we’d file a request to adjudicate defendants' discovery
`objections. Obviously your clients stand on their objections, but to clarify, do you consent to the court
`adjudicating them?
`
`Thanks,
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael T. Petela, Jr.
`Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC
`472 Wheelers Farms Rd
`Milford, CT 06461
`Tel: (203) 691-6491
`Cell: (203) 824-2584
`Fax: (860) 218-9555
`mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com
`www.hayberlawfirm.com
`
`This is a confidential transmission from the law offices of Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC. The
`information contained is privileged and confidential and therefore exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
`If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
`this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
`this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us
`immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at (860) 522-8888 and delete the original, including all
`attachments, without reproducing it in any way. Thank you.
`
`From: Shearin, James T. <jtshearin@pullcom.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 10:24:43 AM
`To: Michael Petela, Jr. <mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com>; Gersten, Eliot B. <EGersten@PULLCOM.COM>; Rapp, Maria
`<MRapp@pullcom.com>; O'Donnell, Ryan A. <rodonnell@pullcom.com>
`Cc: Thomas Durkin <tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com>; Ellen Wallin <ellen@hayberlawfirm.com>; Richard Hayber
`<rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Subject: RE: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
`
`
`Michael, given our prior agreements and the court’s ruling, you may submit your proposal to
`the court with our consent, and may also reflect our consent to the additional pages in your
`opposition brief.
`
`
`
`
`We do not, however, consent to your request for adjudication with respect to the discovery
`objections.
`
`
`
`
`Thanks, Tim
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`James T. (Tim) Shearin, Esq.
`Pullman & Comley LLC
`T 203 330 2240 • jtshearin@pullcom.com
`
`THIS MESSAGE AND ANY OF ITS ATTACHMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, OR THE RECIPIENT’S DESIGNEE, AND
`MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE (1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY
`PULLMAN & COMLEY ABOUT THE RECEIPT BY TELEPHONING (203) 330-2000; (2) DELETE ALL COPIES OF THE MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS; AND (3) DO
`NOT DISSEMINATE OR MAKE ANY USE OF ANY OF THEIR CONTENTS.
`
`From: Michael Petela, Jr. <mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 10:03 AM
`To: Gersten, Eliot B. <EGersten@PULLCOM.COM>; Rapp, Maria <MRapp@pullcom.com>; Shearin, James
`T. <jtshearin@pullcom.com>; O'Donnell, Ryan A. <rodonnell@pullcom.com>
`Cc: Thomas Durkin <tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com>; Ellen Wallin <ellen@hayberlawfirm.com>; Richard
`Hayber <rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Subject: RE: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Maria,
`
`
`
`I think in Fenton / Woodford, you requested a 20-page reply to which we consented, and we requested a 10
`page sur-reply over objection which was granted by the court.
`
`
`
`
`
`Might we agree on those page amounts to propose to the court this time in Farias? Currently that’d be a 20 page
`reply due for you on 5/3/23, and our sur-reply due 5/17/23.
`
`
`
`
`
`Please advise on that, and the issues below (whether you consent to adjudication of your discovery objections,
`and whether you consent to our motion for additional pages for the opposition brief).
`
`
`
`
`
`Thanks,
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael T. Petela, Jr.
`
`Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`From: Michael Petela, Jr.
`Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 5:35 PM
`To: Gersten, Eliot (egersten@pullcom.com) <egersten@pullcom.com>; Rapp, Maria <MRapp@pullcom.com>;
`Shearin, James T. (jtshearin@pullcom.com) <jtshearin@pullcom.com>; O'Donnell, Ryan A.
`<rodonnell@pullcom.com>
`Cc: Thomas Durkin <tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com>; Ellen Wallin <ellen@hayberlawfirm.com>; Richard
`Hayber <rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Subject: RE: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`
`
`
`Will be filing requests for adjudication of your discovery objections tomorrow, along with a request for
`adjudication of our motion for additional pages. Please indicate whether you consent or object as to each.
`
`
`
`
`
`Thanks,
`
`
`
`
`
`Mike
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael T. Petela, Jr.
`
`Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Michael Petela, Jr.
`Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 5:01 PM
`To: Gersten, Eliot (egersten@pullcom.com) <egersten@pullcom.com>; Maria Rapp
`<mrapp@fordharrison.com>; Shearin, James T. (jtshearin@pullcom.com) <jtshearin@pullcom.com>;
`O'Donnell, Ryan A. <rodonnell@pullcom.com>
`Cc: Thomas Durkin <tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com>; Ellen Wallin <ellen@hayberlawfirm.com>; Richard
`Hayber <rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com>
`Subject: Farias v. Rodrigues, et al.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`
`
`
`Please see attached, just filed. A link to the exhibits to the opposition to motion to strike will be shared via
`Dropbox. Please let me know if any issues with the link.
`
`
`
`
`
`Best,
`
`
`
`
`
`Mike
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael T. Petela, Jr.
`
`Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC
`
`472 Wheelers Farms Rd
`
`Milford, CT 06461
`
`Tel: (203) 691-6491
`
`Cell: (203) 824-2584
`
`Fax: (860) 218-9555
`
`mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com
`
`www.hayberlawfirm.com
`
`This is a confidential transmission from the law offices of Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC. The information contained is
`privileged and confidential and therefore exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the
`intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
`notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
`transmission in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at (860) 522-8888 and delete the original,
`including all attachments, without reproducing it in any way. Thank you.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`