Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Summit Showcase, LLC v. National Amusement, Inc. et al.
RULING ON MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE AND OPPOSITION THERETO (114.00, 116.00)
The plaintiff Summit Showcase, LLC (Summit) seeks a declaratory judgment permitting recision of a November 24, 2008 contract with the defendant National Amusements, Inc. (“National”) wherein Summit agreed to purchase three real estate parcels in Connecticut containing movie theaters from National. In essence, Summit claims in its complaint that its performance of the contract, which was to close on April 30, 2009, became impracticable when, as alleged by Summit, National “flooded” the market by offering for sale at least twenty-five other “similar” properties.
Summit seeks a court order that National comply with their document requests which National has either fully or partially objected to. The requests are (with their original numbers).
5. Each and every document referring or relating to the sale, or offer for sale, by [National] of any or all real property in Connecticut during the period January 1, 2000 to date [October 16, 2009].
6. Each and every document referring or relating to the sale [or offer for] sale by [National] [of] any or all real property in the eastern United States, during the period June 1, 2008 to date.
7. Each and every document not other requested herein, referring or relating to any of the subject matter at dispute in this lawsuit.
To begin with the court finds the requests too broad, not only in seeking “each and every document” regardless of whether duplicative, redundant or repetitive but also as to subject matter sought. A document is relevant in so far as it tends to prove or disprove whether National's offer to sell or its sale of properties made the performance of November 24, 2008 contract impracticable. See Dills v. Town of Enfield, 210 Conn. 708, 717-18 (1989). With that scope of relevance in mind Summit's motion for compliance is granted to the limited extent set forth below.
National is ordered to respond to Requests 5 and 6 by providing documents which show or refer to the location, the offering price or sale price (if any) of properties offered for sale, contracted for sale or sold by National on or before May 8, 2009 (the date of the complaint) in the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York. Summit shall bear the burden of 50% (fifty percent) of the costs of this document production which exceed $10,000, (not including attorney or paralegal time).
TAGGART D. ADAMS
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
Adams, Taggart D., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: FSTCV094016364
Decided: October 29, 2010
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)