Cliff Connors - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
                    ORDERED that all parties shall be prepared for                    
               trial at any time during the term of the trial session                 
               unless a specific date has been previously set by the                  
               Court.  * * *                                                          
               On January 3, 2006, respondent’s requests for admission were           
          served and filed, and, because petitioner failed to respond, the            
          facts therein were deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 90.  On                 
          February 6, 2006, respondent filed a motion to compel production            
          of documents and a motion to compel responses to respondent’s               
          interrogatories.  Such requests had been served on petitioner on            
          December 30, 2005, and petitioner, though represented by Neal,              
          had not produced any documents or answered the interrogatories.             
          By order of the Court dated February 9, 2006, respondent’s                  
          motions were granted in that petitioner was ordered to produce              
          the requested documents and to answer the interrogatories on or             
          before March 1, 2006.  On February 15, 2006, Neal filed a motion            
          to continue, alleging that petitioner was in China and could not            
          return for the trial.  Respondent objected to the motion to                 
          continue on the grounds that--                                              
                    4.  With regard to the March 1, 2006 discovery                    
               deadlines, it is respondent’s understanding that as                    
               early as the filing of the petition in this case,                      
               petitioner has had access to Cigna, who is the parent                  
               company for the 2002 payment made by Connecticut                       
               General * * *.  Despite such access, petitioner has                    
               provided no documentation other than the initial                       
               disability insurance policy in support of the 2002                     
               payment of $269,474 at issue.  Petitioner has provided                 
               no reasonable explanation regarding why he was unable                  
               to provide a copy of the 2002 settlement and/or the                    
               underlying terms and/or any documentation from the                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011