Bradley v. Grupo Iberostar et al

Filing 161

ORDER : See attached ruling on the plaintiff's motion 143 to compel. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/15/13. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LOUISE BRADLEY,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
GRUPO IBEROSTAR, et al.,
Defendant.

CASE NO.

3:12cv360(RNC)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
The plaintiff brings this personal injury lawsuit against
Iberostar Hotels & Resorts ("Iberostar"), Hotelera Playa Paraiso
S.A.

de

C.V.

Vacations).

and

the

Mark

Travel

Corporation

(dba

Funjet

Pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion to

compel defendant Iberostar to respond to interrogatories. (Doc.
#143.)
1.

After hearing oral argument, the court rules as follows:

Interrogatory 3 requests the defendant to indicate whether it

"took any action to demonstrate that it controlled the nature and
quality of the goods or services provided under the mark(s)." As
phrased, the request is confusing.

During oral argument, the

plaintiff stated that the interrogatory asks the defendant "how
Iberostar controls the nature and quality of the goods or services
provided

under

the

mark(s)."

The

defendant

agreed

that

understands this to be the meaning of the interrogatory.

it
So

clarified, the defendant's objection to the interrogatory on the
ground

of

vagueness

is

denied

as

moot.

Interrogatory

3

is

granted.1
2.

Interrogatories 4 and 5a are granted.

During oral argument,

the defendant stated it does not object to the requests.
3.

Interrogatories 5, 6 and 6a are withdrawn by the plaintiff.

4.

Interrogatory 11 is granted.

The defendant objected on the

grounds that the information sought was "proprietary financial
information" that it "will not produce . . . in the absence of a
protective order."2
protective order.

The plaintiff is willing to enter into a
Counsel agree that they can work together to

draft an appropriate order.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 15th day of November,
2013.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The defendant agreed to check further for any additional
responsive information.
2

This was the only objection the defendant asserted in its
response to the interrogatory. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) provides
that "[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived
unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure." To the
extent that the defendant now seeks to raise additional objections,
they are waived as the defendant has not demonstrated good cause.
2