Wade Rome et al. v. Oak Investment Partners et al. (2012)

Memorandum of Decision on Applicant's Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas Duces Tecum (No. 100.31);  Respondent Oak Investment Partners XII, Limited Partnership's Objection to Motion to Compel (No. 102);  and Respondent Oak Investment Partners XII, Limited Partnership's Objection and Motion for Protective Order (No. 104).

On January 10, 2012, Wade and Kathleen Rome (applicants) moved to compel three parties, Oak Investment Partners, Oak Investment Group and Oak XII F & S Blocker Corp., (respondents), to produce documents requested in subpoenas duces tecum served upon them in Connecticut.   This motion to compel is ancillary to a pending civil action in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio known as Wade Rome et al v. Scott Seidelman et al., Case No. 726993, before ¹

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Applicants submits as an exhibit to their application an “Objection of Non–Party Oak XII F & S Blocker Corp. To Plaintiffs' Subpoena Duces Tecum” dated August 26, 2011 bearing the caption of a lawsuit of a civil action in the Superior Court at Stamford entitled Wade Rome et al. v. Scott Seidelman et al., no docket number given.   The objection is filed by Oak XII F & S Blocker Corp apparently on behalf of itself and Oak Investment Partners and Oak Investment Group.   The eleven-page objection is signed by counsel from Finn Dixon and Herling of Stamford as counsel for “Non–Party Oak XII F & S Blocker Corp.” To this court's knowledge there is not now and was not last August a lawsuit in this court known as Wade Rome et al. v. Scott Seidelman et al.   This objection of August 26, 2011 is definitely not filed in this proceeding now pending, which was commenced in January of 2012.   It has been disregarded by the court..  FN1. Applicants submits as an exhibit to their application an “Objection of Non–Party Oak XII F & S Blocker Corp. To Plaintiffs' Subpoena Duces Tecum” dated August 26, 2011 bearing the caption of a lawsuit of a civil action in the Superior Court at Stamford entitled Wade Rome et al. v. Scott Seidelman et al., no docket number given.   The objection is filed by Oak XII F & S Blocker Corp apparently on behalf of itself and Oak Investment Partners and Oak Investment Group.   The eleven-page objection is signed by counsel from Finn Dixon and Herling of Stamford as counsel for “Non–Party Oak XII F & S Blocker Corp.” To this court's knowledge there is not now and was not last August a lawsuit in this court known as Wade Rome et al. v. Scott Seidelman et al.   This objection of August 26, 2011 is definitely not filed in this proceeding now pending, which was commenced in January of 2012.   It has been disregarded by the court.

FOOTNOTE.  

Jennings, Alfred J., J.T.R.