2500 SS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs. THOMAS J. WHITE

1996 Ct. Sup. 1980
No. CV96 032 89 34Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
March 27, 1996

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDERS RE OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS TO REVISE (#106)

LEVIN, JUDGE.

Plaintiff’s objections to the following

Overruled — 1, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72 and 74.

The following objections are sustained:

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27, 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 45, 50, 52, 53, 59, 61, 65, 69, 73, 75, 76, 77 and 78.

Objections 12, 14, 28 and 48 are sustained. Whether a variation of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is here implicated is not now before the court. See United Mine Works v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 670 (1965); Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. NoerrMotor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 136 (1961).

The court has not undertaken to rule on any substantive claims advanced in connection with the objections to the requests to revise.

LEVIN, JUDGE

image_pdfimage_print