Vidal et al v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company
Filing
70
ORDER granting 47 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 3/28/13. (Esposito, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ROBERT VIDAL
HOLGER OCANA
v.
METRO-NORTH COMMUTER
RAILROAD COMPANY
:
:
:
:
: CIV. NO. 3:12CV248 (MPS)
:
:
:
:
:
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. #47]
This action is brought by plaintiffs Robert Vidal and
Holger Ocana, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis
of their Hispanic ethnicity, when they were denied acceptance
into the Maintenance of Equipment Promotion-To-Foreman Training
Program (the “FIT Program”), by their employer Metro-North
Commuter Railroad Company, an alleged violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e
et seq.
Pending
is plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel responses to their First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents [Doc.
#47].
A telephone conference was held on January 23, 2013, at the
request of plaintiffs, seeking an interim ruling on discovery
objections to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in advance of the
settlement conference. The Court overruled defendant’s
objections to interrogatories 7 and 8, as follows. Defendant was
ordered to state the number of people accepted into the FIT
Program in 2007 and the number of Foreman positions filled in
1
2007. The ruling was without prejudice to plaintiffs’ requesting
further information if defendant asserts a more extensive lack
of mitigation affirmative defense. Objections to interrogatory 9
were overruled as follows. Defendant was ordered to state the
number of people who completed the FIT Program for the years
2003-06 and the number of Foreman positions filled in 2003-06.
A settlement conference was held on January 31, 2013. At
the conclusion of the conference the parties met with the Court
to resolve the remaining discovery issues raised in the motion
to compel. This ruling and order memorializes the order of the
Court and the agreement of the parties.
1. General Objections Incorporated in Each Response
Defendant’s interrogatory responses to Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9 and
13 incorporate by reference all of the substantive general
objections (eight in total), stating, “In addition to the
General Objections, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” [Doc. #47-2, Defendant’s Supplemental Objections and
Responses dated December 3, 2012].
Defendant will specify which
of the “General Objections” it relies on for Interrogatories 2,
7, 8, 9, 13 and 14. Defendant will provide supplemental
responses within seven (7) days.
Before defendant files its supplemental responses the Court
is compelled to comment generally on the use of “General
Objections” and other boilerplate discovery objections.
Defendant repeats the same verbiage into each interrogatory
2
response, using the familiar boilerplate phrase that each and
every request is “overly broad, unduly burdensome and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence” and further that it relies on an unspecified “General
Objection.”
The frustration expressed by plaintiff with respect
to defendant’s non-specific objections is shared by this Court
and, quite frankly, only serves to increase litigation expenses
on motion practice, potentially extend deadlines for completion
of discovery unnecessarily and delay resolution of cases.
“[T]he scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) is very
broad, ‘encompass[ing] any matter that bears on, or that
reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any
issue that is or may be in the case.’” Maresco v. Evans
Chemetics Div. of W.R. Grace & Co., 964 F.2d 106, 114 (2d Cir.
1992) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,
351, (1978)).
“A party seeking discovery may move for an order
compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “Motions to compel made pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 are “entrusted to the sound discretion of the
district court.”
United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 720
(2d Cir. 2000). “The grounds for objecting to any interrogatory
must be stated with specificity.
Any ground not stated in a
timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause,
excuses the failure.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).
“[B]oilerplate
objections that include unsubstantiated claims of undue burden,
overbreadth and lack of relevancy,” while producing “no
documents and answer[ing] no interrogatories . . . are a
3
paradigm of discovery abuse.”
Jacoby v. Hartford Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 254 F.R.D> 477, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
A party
resisting discovery has the burden of showing “specifically how,
despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal
discovery rules, each interrogatory is not relevant or how each
question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, . . .
submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature
of the burden.”
Compagnie Francaise d’Assurance Pour le
Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 42
(S.D.N.Y. 1984) (citation omitted).
Defendant is cautioned that continued failure to follow the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to making specific
objections to discovery demands may result in the imposition of
sanctions and/or payment of costs.
2. Interrogatory Nos. 13 & 14
Interrogatory 13: State the factual basis for the assertion
that the CHRO “unreasonably delayed in acknowledging its
lack of jurisdiction.”
Interrogatory 14: State the factual basis of the assertion
that “[t]he EEOC and Department of Justice unreasonably
delayed processing plaintiffs’ administrative charges after
the CHRO finally acknowledged that it lacked jurisdiction.”
Defendant provided identical responses to these
interrogatories as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the General
Objections, Defendant states that Plaintiffs
improperly filed charges with the CHRO, an agency
which statutorily lacked jurisdiction over their
claims, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 16-344(a).
4
since the CHRO never had jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs’ filings with the
CHRO were void ab initio. Plaintiffs’ failure to
timely and diligently pursue their appropriate
administrative remedies solely before the EEOC
resulted in extraordinary delays in the
administrative processing of their charges of
discrimination to Defendant’s detriment.
Defendant’s ability to defend itself in this
action has been damaged by the delay caused by
Plaintiffs’ defective filing with the CHRO which
led directly to further delays before the EEOC
and Department of Justice. Plaintiffs failed to
request right-to-sue letter in a timely manner,
so it has now been over six years since the
events occurred about which plaintiffs claim.
Plaintiffs seek further clarification regarding the alleged
conduct by plaintiffs, the CHRO, the EEOC and the DOJ that
supports defendant’s laches defense.
Defendant contends that it
has answered the interrogatories and that plaintiffs are aware
of the timeline associated with the administrative process.
If
there is anything further, defendant may supplement the
responses and provide further information regarding the “factual
basis” for its defense within seven days.
3. Request for Production 10
On January 8, 2013, defendant stated in response to
plaintiffs’ motion to compel that it had produced all responsive
documents and referenced the Bates numbered documents produced.
[Doc. #57].
On reply, plaintiffs stated that defendant’s
response was “improper and confusing.” [Doc. #60 at 3]. At the
conference, plaintiffs did not explain how the production was
insufficient under the Federal Rules. If there are no other
responsive documents, after a good faith effort to locate them,
5
defendant will so state under oath and withdraw its objection.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel request for
production 10 is moot on this record.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [Doc. #47] is
GRANTED as set forth in this ruling and the Court’s interim
ruling dated January 23, 2013. [Doc. #62].
Defendant’s
supplemental discovery responses are due in seven (7) days.
Defendant’s response to Request for Production 10 is due in
fourteen (14) days.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel request for production 10 is
moot on this record.
The parties are reminded of their on-going duty to
supplement or correct disclosures or responses under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(e).1
The parties are encouraged to contact chambers to schedule
1
Fed. R. Civ. P 25(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.
(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule
26(a)--or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for
production, or request for admission--must supplement or correct
its disclosure or response:
(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material
respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect,
and if the additional or corrective information has not
otherwise been made known to the other parties during the
discovery process or in writing;
6
a conference, if any issues arise that may impact the deadlines
set in this ruling/order.
This is not a recommended ruling.
This is a discovery
ruling and 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. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of
the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges.
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
28th day of March 2013.
______/s/_________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
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?