Opinion
11 CV 1435 (JBA)
01-31-2012
1/31/12 – ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena (Dkt. #17). The discovery issue here has been more than adequately briefed. (See Dkts. ## 17, 21 & 27).
In light of the fact that this is apparently the fourth lawsuit plaintiff has commenced against defendant for the same loss in April 2006, one of which was recently dismissed by U.S. District Judge Christopher F. Droney, and in light of the fact that Connecticut Superior Court Judges already have ruled that plaintiff is not entitled to many of the discovery requests at issue here (See Dkt. #17, at 1-4 & Exhs. A-C; Dkt. #27, at 1 & Exh. A; see also Dkt. #21, at 1-4), defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena (Dkt. #17) is hereby granted.
This conclusion is without prejudice to plaintiff re-serving his subpoena after Judge Arterton rules upon the anticipated dispositive motion by defendant. (See Dkts. ##11-12, 18, 20, 24, 26).