Erickson v. Staples, Inc. et al

Filing 89

ORDER granting 51 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 12/17/09. (Turner, M.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT KIMBERLIE ERICKSON, Plaintiff, v. STAPLES INC., ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:08CV973(AWT) RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL Pending before the court is the plaintiff's Motion to Compel, doc. #51. Oral argument was held on December 16, 2009. During the hearing, plaintiff's counsel narrowed her earlier request. She now seeks to compel the production of emails sent to or from the plaintiff, or on which the plaintiff was copied, for the period of October 1, 2006 to July 20, 2007. to Compel is granted as to that narrowed request. The defendants raise a burdensomeness objection, but that objection is unsupported by evidence. "Under well-settled law, The Motion the party resisting production bears the responsibility of establishing undue burden." Michanczyk v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 3:05CV1903, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21197 at *5-6 (D. Conn. Mar. 26, 2007). The defendants have made no showing as to the nature and extent of the actual burden they would face in responding to the plaintiff's requests. See, e.g., In re In-Store Advertising Sec. Lit., 163 F.R.D. 452, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ("If a party resists production on the basis of claimed undue burden, it must establish the factual basis for the assertion through competent evidence."). In the absence of any showing, the court cannot sustain the defendants' burdensomeness objection. The other objections advanced by the defendants are also overruled. The plaintiff's Motion to Compel, doc. #51 is GRANTED. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 17th day of December, 2009. _______/s/_______________________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?