NHCaseLaw.com

In this civil action, the plaintiff, MBNA America Bank, NA ("MBNA"), sought to enforce an arbitration award against the defendant, Troy T. Cornock ("the defendant"). On March 20, 2007, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and found that the arbitration award was unenforceable as a matter of law. However, the defendant has filed multiple counterclaims against MBNA which require resolution. Presently before the Court are the defendant's: (1) Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and for Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Production of Documents; and (3) Motion to Add Additional Cross Party Plaintiff. MBNA objects to all the motions. The Court held a hearing on the matter on May 3, 2007. After consideration of the pleadings, argument, and applicable law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

NOW COMES the defendant, Donald Laro, by his attorneys, Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., and files this objection to plaintiffs' motion to compel, and states as follows:

The parties are before the Court in a civil action concerning a telephone jamming operation said to have been engaged in by defendants during the November, 2002 elections. That jamming operation was intended to disrupt or frustrate a "Get Out The Vote" telephone effort on the part of the plaintiffs.

The Court held a hearing on August 13, 1997, for continued argument on pending motions. The plaintiff, the intervenor, and the co-respondent were represented by counsel. The defendant appeared pro se.

At issue in plaintiffs' motion to compel are various documents that plaintiffs had sought from defendant New Hampshire Republican State Committee ("NHRSC") during discovery in this civil action. In earlier proceedings, the Court had entered various discovery orders. Plaintiffs assert that NHRSC has failed to comply with the discovery orders as entered by the Court. The items which presently appear to constitute the central focus of the plaintiffs' motion concern a report arising from an investigation of the underlying telephone jamming issues that had been conducted by legal counsel for defendant NHRSC, and its supporting documents. Counsel for NHRSC submits that the material at issue is protected by the attorney-client privilege as well as the attorney work-product privilege.

The Court has reviewed the transcript of plaintiffs deposition, submitted under Court order of January 31, 2005. By way of brief background, plaintiff claims defendant-decedent failed to stop at a red light on March 16, 2001, striking her vehicle and causing her personal injuries. Plaintiff also claims lost wages from April, 2003 forward. Before the Court is plaintiffs Motion to Appoint a Commissioner, following the abrupt termination of plaintiffs deposition.

Plaintiffs have filed this negligence action for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident which occurred on or about December 16, 2003. Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to allow expert disclosure without compliance with RSA 516:29-b. This motion asserts that the disclosure and reporting provisions of the statute, RSA 516:29-b, II & III, do not apply to treating physicians and that the statute is unconstitutional. Defendant objects.