Monteith v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 543551 (Oct. 1, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Monteith v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 543551 (Oct. 1, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10041

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 1, 1997

DocketNo. 543551

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10041 (Monteith v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 543551 (Oct. 1, 1997)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monteith v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 543551 (Oct. 1, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10041 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER ON PFIZER, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE A motion to strike is appropriate to contest a Bill of Discovery. Nestor v. Traveler's Indemnity Co.,41 Conn. App. 625 (1996). Plaintiff's Bill of Discovery in the instant case is inadequate under the Berger standard. Berger v. Cuomo,230 Conn. 1 (1994). The language in the instant bill does not specify the cause of action out of which the claimed discovery arises. Plaintiff only argues about "possible legal actions." Plaintiff's oral argument to the court does not satisfy the requirements of the application. This court cannot, therefore, determine whether the information sought is both "material and necessary." Id. at 7. There is no evidence before this court that discovery cannot be adequately obtained in another forum. Id. at 6.

Accordingly, Pfizer, Inc.'s Motion to Strike is granted.

Handy, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER ON PFIZER, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE A motion to strike is appropriate to contest a Bill of Discovery. Nestor v. Traveler's Indemnity Co.,41 Conn. App. 625 (1996). Plaintiff's Bill of Discovery in the instant case is inadequate under the Berger standard. Berger v. Cuomo,230 Conn. 1 (1994). The language in the instant bill does not specify the cause of action out of which the claimed discovery arises. Plaintiff only argues about "possible legal actions." Plaintiff's oral argument to the court does not satisfy the requirements of the application. This court cannot, therefore, determine whether the information sought is both "material and necessary." Id. at 7. There is no evidence before this court that discovery cannot be adequately obtained in another forum. Id. at 6.

Accordingly, Pfizer, Inc.'s Motion to Strike is granted.

Handy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monteith-v-pfizer-inc-no-543551-oct-1-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack