Derisme v. Hunt Leibert Jacobson PC

Filing 186

ORDER granting 164 Motion ; granting 167 Motion in Limine; granting 168 Motion in Limine; denying 169 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 182 Motion for Extension of Time ; granting in part and denying in part 183 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. See Attached Ruling. Plaintiff shall have until December 2, 2011 to oppose Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/14/2011. (Fernandez, Melissa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
FABIOLA DERISME,
PLAINTIFF,

v.
HUNT LEIBERT JACOBSON, P.C.
DEFENDANT

:
:
: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10cv23 (VLB)
:
: NOVEMBER 14, 2011
:
:
:

Ruling on Docket Numbers 164, 167, 168, 169, 182, 183, 184

A. Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to produce referral package [Dkt. # 164].
The Defendant has asserted that the referral package is protected by the
attorney-client privilege. “The attorney-client privilege protects communications
(1) between a client and his or her attorney (2) that are intended to be, and in fact
were, kept confidential (3) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.”
U.S. v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011). “The party asserting the privilege
… bears the burden of establishing its essential elements.” Id. The sole basis for
Defendant’s assertion of attorney-client privilege is that the referral package was
sent by their client. The Court notes that the referral package includes, for
example the Mortgage Deed, which is clearly not privileged and a matter of public
record. The Court finds that the Defendant has therefore failed to establish a
basis for the Court to sustain its objection on the basis of attorney-client
privilege. The Plaintiff’s motion to produce the referral package is granted.

B. Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to preclude expert testimony [Dkt. #
167]
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff was obligated to disclose
the “the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each
individual likely to have discoverable information — along with the subjects of
that information” which would include the identity of any experts. Moreover, the
original discovery deadline in this case was November 1, 2010. As one of
numerous accommodations to Plaintiff’s pro se status, this Court extended the
discovery deadline including the expert discovery deadline for another ten
months until September 15, 2011. Defendant has represented that Plaintiff has
failed to disclose the identity of any experts. Plaintiff has not refuted Defendant’s
assertion. Since Summary Judgment briefing has been filed, it would be highly
prejudicial and a waste of judicial resources to reopen discovery at this late
juncture. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); see also LaMarca v. U.S., 31 F. Supp.2d 110,
122-133 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).
C. Order Granting Defendant’s Motion in Limine as to evidence of damages
[Dkt. # 168]
Defendant’s motion in limine is granted as Plaintiff has not sought
monetary relief in her Verified Amended Complaint. See Verified Amended
Complaint [Dkt.# 42, Attach 1].

D. Order Denying Defendant’s Motion in Limine to preclude fact witness
testimony [Dkt. # 169]

Defendant’s motion in limine is denied to the extent that Plaintiff offers
such testimony as rebuttal for purposes of impeachment.
E. Order Granting in part and Denying in part Plaintiff’s motions for extension
of time [Dkt. ## 182, 183]
Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time until December 2, 2011 to oppose
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for
extension of time to oppose Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude fact
witness, motion in limine to preclude expert witness and motion in limine to
preclude evidence of damages is denied as Plaintiff has not shown that “the time
limitation in question cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party
seeking the extension” as required by Local Rule 7 (b).
F. Order Denying request for telephonic conference [Dkt.#184]
The Parties have not complied with the Chamber’s practice on “Notice to
Parties re: Discovery Disputes” which requires the Parties submit a concise
statement of the applicable legal argument and legal authority. To the extent that
Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint, she must file a motion to amend the
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 articulating why Plaintiff should be
permitted to amend the complaint at this late stage in the litigation under relevant
Second Circuit caselaw.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______/s/____________

Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: November 14, 2011