Lopes v. Hubbell Incorporated
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Compel; denying 28 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 7/26/12. (Nichols, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CASE NO. 3:11CV1961(RNC)
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
Pending before the court is the defendant's Motion to
At oral argument, counsel represented that
Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 8 and Document Requests Nos. 6, 7 and
9 are no longer in dispute.
After considering the arguments
made by the parties in their papers and during oral argument,
the court rules on the remaining disputes as follows:
Interrogatory No. 11 and Document Requests Nos. 17 and
18 are granted in part and denied in part.
plaintiff put her mental health at issue by seeking damages for
emotional distress, the defendant is entitled to investigate her
mental health, including the possible effects of the alleged
carpal tunnel and fibromyalgia conditions raised in the
plaintiff's July 2012 deposition testimony.
For the time period
from 2006 to the present, the plaintiff shall provide an index
District Judge Robert N. Chatigny referred the motion to
the undersigned for a ruling. (Doc. #30.)
of medical records that identifies all health care providers and
the institutions at which she received care, the dates of
treatment and the nature of the condition for which she sought
The plaintiff shall produce all records of treatment
for her mental health, carpal tunnel and fibromyalgia conditions
Additionally, the parties shall have a reasoned
discussion as to whether any other condition described in the
index might bear on her claim of emotional distress.
If so, the
plaintiff shall produce the relevant records.
The plaintiff shall comply with Document Requests Nos.
1, 8 and 10.
The plaintiff need not reproduce documents that
the defendant has produced to plaintiff since the commencement
of this action.
The plaintiff shall comply with Document Request No. 11
by producing any agreement containing or describing the fee
arrangement with her counsel in this matter.
Contrary to the
plaintiff's assertion that the lodestar method renders the fee
arrangement irrelevant to her claim for attorney's fees, this
court has noted that "whether the fee is fixed or contingent"
may be relevant to the calculation of attorney's fees under the
lodestar method in a Title VII case.
See Serricchio v. Wachovia
Securities, LLC, 706 F. Supp. 2d 237, 253 n.6 (D. Conn. 2010)
(citing twelve factors).
Document Request No. 15 is granted in part and denied
For the period from 2007 to the present, the plaintiff
shall produce all income records responsive to Document Request
No. 15, including complete copies of her federal income tax
If she does not have complete copies of the tax
returns in her possession, she shall authorize the defendant to
The plaintiff's request for an award of fees and costs
incurred in bringing this motion is denied.
See Fed. R. Civ. P.
The circumstances do not warrant sanctions.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 26th day of July,
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
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?