Pirrotti v. Respironics, Inc et al

Filing 148

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 123 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 130 Motion for Extension of Time ; granting in part and denying in part 131 Motion to Compel. Please see attached Order for deadlines. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 7/30/2012. (Garcia, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ANDREA PIRROTTI,
v.
RESPIRONICS, INC.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. NO. 3:11CV439 (JCH)

ORDER: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND FOR EXTENSION OF
DEADLINES [DOC. ## 123, 130, 131]
Plaintiff Andrea Pirrotti moves to compel production of
documents in response to her second, third and fourth requests
for production. [doc. ## 123, 131]. Further, plaintiff moves to
extend the discovery deadline and to submit her opposition to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment. [doc. # 130]. At the
request of plaintiff’s counsel, the Court heard argument on July
5, 2012. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs motions [doc. ##
123, 130, 131] are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
For nearly a year the parties conducted discovery. At the
request of plaintiff [doc # 100] the original discovery deadline
was extended to May 30, 2012.1 [doc. ## 101, 121]. On April 11,
2012, plaintiff served defendant electronically with a second
request for production, on May 1 a third request for production,

1

The plaintiff sought to extend the discovery deadline to
June 30, 2012, which request was denied by Judge Hall.
1

and on May 15 a fourth request for production. In general, the
Court is unable to discern precisely which documents plaintiff is
still seeking. What is clear to the Court is that plaintiff
assumes the existence of certain documents and that defendants
have not given plaintiff adequate assurances that, in fact, a
thorough document search has been undertaken and that responsive
documents do not exist.

Moreover, as plaintiff’s counsel

conceded at oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel, a solo
practitioner, is still reviewing the original document
production.
With regard to plaintiff’s third and fourth requests for
production, defendant opposes the discovery both because it is
untimely and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. The Court agrees with defendant. Discovery was to be
completed by May 30, 2012. By serving the requests in May,
plaintiff would have expected defendant’s responses to the third
request by June 3, 2012 and to the fourth request on June 17,
2012, at the earliest. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
34(b)(2)(A); 6(d) and 6(a). Plaintiff was aware of the Court’s
unwillingness to extend the discovery period past May 30. As
such, those discovery requests were untimely. Further, the
plaintiff has not met her burden that the information sought is
likely to lead to admissible evidence. See Coudert v. Jannet
Montgomery Scott LLC, No. 3:03cv324 (MRK)

2004 WL 2381552, at *2

(D. Conn. Oct. 7, 2004) (citations omitted) (“parties should not
2

be permitted to roam in shadow zones of relevancy and to explore
matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that
it might conceivably become so.”).
With regard to the plaintiff’s second request for
production, defendant argues -and plaintiff does not deny- that
many of these requests are duplicative of the first request for
production. Further, a close examination of defendant’s
objections reveals that, while defendant made general objections,
defendant stated that without waiving the objections, nonprivileged documents either had been produced or would be
produced to plaintiff. Defendant shall endeavor one last time to
search in good faith for documents responsive to plaintiff’s
second request for production. Supplemental responsive documents,
if any, shall be provided to plaintiff within 15 days of this
Order. Additionally, the parties shall exchange privilege logs
within 15 days of this Order. Finally, within 15 days of this
Order, defendant shall provide plaintiff with an affidavit
specifically setting forth the protocol by which documents were
searched and whether, to the best of defendant’s knowledge, all
responsive, non-privileged documents have been produced.

If

there are no responsive documents, after a good faith effort to
locate them, defendant shall so state under oath. Plaintiff will
file her opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment
within 30 days of this Order.

3

For the reasons stated, plaintiff’s motions [doc. ## 123,
130, 131] are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. This is not a
Recommended Ruling. This is a discovery 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. 72(a); and D. Conn. L.
Civ. R. 72.2. 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 30th day of July 2012.

/s/
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4