Rodriquez v. Calace et al

Filing 87

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 85 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 1/4/12. (Esposito, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
:
:
:
:
v.
:
:
NICHOLAS CALACE,
:
BERNAVIN ARMSTRONG and
:
BRIDGEPORT HOUSING AUTHORITY, :
:
:
:
:
LORI RODRIGUEZ

CIV. NO. 3:07CV200 (WWE)

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Lori Rodriguez brings this employment discrimination law
suit against her employer, the Bridgeport Housing Authority
(“BHA”); its Executive Director, Nicholas Calace, and her direct
supervisor, Bernavin Armstrong.
On October 7, 2011, the Court issued a ruling and order
granting defendants’ Motion to Compel. [Doc. #72]. At that time,
the Court denied defendants’ request for Rule 37 sanctions
without prejudice stating, “Defendants may move to preclude any
testimony and/or treating records that were not produced during
discovery.” [Doc. #72 at 3]. On October 24, 2011, a telephone
conference was held at the request of defendants’ counsel seeking
enforcement of the Court’s ruling. [Doc. #74].
2011, a follow-up ruling was filed. [Doc. #75].

On October 26,
On November 16,

2011, a telephone conference was held at the request of
defendants’ counsel seeking enforcement of the Court’s ruling.
1

[Doc. #78].

Defendants brought an oral Motion to Enforce the

Court’s ruling on the Motion to Compel. [Doc. #77].

On November

16, 2011, a follow-up ruling was filed granting defendants’
Motion to Enforce. [Doc. #80].

On November 30, 2011, a telephone

conference was held at the request of defendants’ counsel,
seeking enforcement of the Court’s ruling. [Doc. #81]. Defendants
filed a Motion for Sanctions on December 6, 2011. [Doc. #85],
renewing their request for sanctions.

On December 7, 2011, the

Court held a telephone conference to address defendants’ Motion
for Sanctions [Doc. #80].

After careful consideration of the

parties’ positions, the Court rules as follows.
Based on the representations of plaintiff’s counsel,
defendants may be assured that all documents on which plaintiff
will rely with respect to medical treatment to date have been
provided.

Absent extraordinary cause shown by plaintiff,

plaintiff will not be permitted to elicit testimony concerning
any treatment or provider not reflected in the records produced
to date.

To the extent that Interrogatory No.39 and Request for

Production No. 2 request “reports, notes, bills, communications,
labs or other tangible material concerning any consultation or
treatment with any health care provider for injuries . . . ”
which have not been provided, defendants are entitle to rely on
the representation that no such records will be relied on by
plaintiff.

2

Accordingly, defendant’ Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in
accordance with this ruling. [Doc. #85].

Defendants’ request for

costs incurred seeking enforcement of the Court’s October 7,
2011, ruling up to the filing of the Motion for Sanctions is
GRANTED.

Defendants’ request for costs incurred in bringing this

Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
This is not a recommended ruling.

This is a discovery

ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly
erroneous" statutory standard of review.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of
the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges.

As such, it

is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the
district judge upon motion timely made.

SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 4th day of January 2012.

___/s/________________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3