Carlus v. Public Health et al

Filing 43

ORDER: The defendants' motion 31 to compel is granted as set forth in the attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/14/12. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RICHEL CARLUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF,
PUBLIC HEALTH and STEVE
MESSER,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:11cv172(AWT)

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
The

plaintiff,

proceeding

pro

se,

commenced

this

action

alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

Pending before the

court is the defendants' motion to compel.1

(Doc. #31.)

The

(Doc. #35.)

The

plaintiff has filed a response to the motion.
court rules on the requests at issue as follows:
1.

Interrogatory 15 is granted if the plaintiff responds that he

is seeking damages for emotional distress.

The names, dates of

treatment and diagnoses of medical providers who treated the
plaintiff for emotional distress are relevant within the meaning of
Rule 26(b)(1) to his damages claim of emotional distress.

See

Perry v. City of New Haven, No. 3:11CV1485(RNC)(DFM), 2012 WL
3887061, at *2 (D. Conn. Sept. 6, 2012).
2.

Request

1

for

Production

4

is

granted.

If

no responsive

Chief Judge Alvin W. Thompson referred the motion to the
undersigned. See doc. #32.

documents exist, the plaintiff shall so state under oath.
3.

Request for Production 7 is granted. If plaintiff alleges any

loss of earning capacity, he must provide a computation of those
damages.
4.

Request for Production 18 is granted.

the

plaintiff's

efforts

to

obtain

Information regarding

employment

is

relevant

to

mitigation of damages. "A victim of employment discrimination has
a

duty

to

attempt

to

mitigate

his

or

her

damages

by

using

'reasonable diligence in finding other suitable employment.'" Ford
Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219, 231 (1982); see 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e–5(g)(1). "This obligation is not onerous and does not
require [the victim of discrimination] to be successful" in the
attempt to mitigate. Hawkins v. 1115 Legal Service Care, 163 F.3d
684, 695 (2d Cir. 1998).

"In order to reduce the meritorious

claimant's entitlement to backpay, the defendant employer has the
burden of demonstrating that she has failed to attempt to mitigate.
This burden may be met by establishing (1) that suitable work
existed, and (2) that the employee did not make reasonable efforts
to obtain it."

Id.

SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 14th day of November,
2012.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

2