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.)

Download PDF
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 Interrogatories 5, 6 and 6a are withdrawn by the plaintiff. 4.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

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?