DaCosta v. Danbury et al
Filing
124
ORDER granting in part 93 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order; granting 94 Motion for Protective Order; granting 94 Motion to Quash; granting 94 Motion for Sanctions; granting 114 Motion for Protective Order; granting 114 Motion for Sanctions; granting in part 117 Motion to Take Deposition from Greg Pina, Anthony Iadarola, Carol Desantie and defendant Mayor Boughton. Depositions due by 9/30/2013. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 7/25/13. (Nichols, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
WENDY DACOSTA,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DANBURY et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:12CV1011(RNC)
RULING ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS
Plaintiff Wendy DaCosta brings this action against the City
of Danbury, its mayor Mark Boughton and its Director of Human
Resources Virginia Alosco-Werner.
Plaintiff alleges violations
of her civil rights and defamation in connection with the
termination of her employment.
Pending before the court are
plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (doc. #93);
defendants' Motion for Protective Order, to Quash, and for
Sanctions (doc. #94); defendants' second Motion for Protective
Order and Sanctions (doc. #114) and plaintiff's Motion to Take
Depositions (doc. #117).
District Judge Robert N. Chatigny
referred the motions to the undersigned.
#120.)
(Docs. #96, #119,
A.
Procedural History
Defendant removed this action from the state court in July
2012.
(Doc. #1.)
In August 2012, the court ordered that all
discovery must "be completed (not propounded) by June 30, 2013."1
(Doc. #12.)
Also in August 2012, plaintiff served its first set
of interrogatories, which asked defendants to identify the facts
underlying their denials of plaintiff's allegations.
Defendants
had not yet answered the allegations, so they objected that the
interrogatories were premature.
They added that they intended
to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss prior to filing an
answer.2
(Docs. #114-23, -24, -25.)
Plaintiff argues that defendants' delay in fully responding
to the interrogatories has hampered her discovery efforts.
However, plaintiff sought no corresponding relief from the court
for seven months.
Defendants filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions in
October and December 2012 (docs. #19, #33), to which plaintiff
responded by twice amending her complaint (docs. #35, #62), most
recently in April 2013.
In May 2013, defendants filed a third
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is currently pending.
(Doc. #81.)
1
The court subsequently granted an extension of expert
discovery until September 30, 2013. (Doc. #89.)
2
At oral argument on July 24, 2013, defendants represented
that after they file their answer they will provide written
responses to the August 2012 interrogatories.
2
On Friday, June 21, 2013, at 4:33 p.m., with the fact
discovery deadline only nine days away, plaintiff served the
following documents on defendants: a Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Order; notices of five depositions to be completed
within the following week, three of which requested significant
document production; and a letter conceding that the depositions
had been scheduled on "short notice" and indicating some
willingness to reschedule them to more convenient dates.
#114-26.)
(Doc.
In particular, plaintiff noticed the deposition of
defendant Mayor Boughton for the following Monday at 10:00 a.m.,
less than one business day after the notice.
12.)
(Doc. #114-26 at
Defendants' counsel spent her weekend preparing the first
Motion for Protective Order (doc. #94) in anticipation of the
purported Monday deposition.
On Tuesday, June 25, plaintiff
noticed a sixth deposition for that Thursday.
¶ 8.)
(Doc. #114-16 at
With the cooperation of defendants' counsel, two
depositions were completed that week prior to the June 30
deadline for fact discovery.
(Id. at ¶ 9.)
On July 3, 2013, defendants received additional written
discovery requests from plaintiff.
The requests were dated June
30, 2013, the last day of discovery.
They included 1360
requests to admit as well as new interrogatories and requests
for production directed to defendants Boughton and AloscoWerner.
(Docs. #114-18 to -22.)
In response, defendants filed
3
their second Motion for Protective Order.
(Doc. #114.)
At oral
argument on July 24, 2013, plaintiff conceded that the discovery
propounded on June 30, 2013 was untimely because it did not
comply with the court's deadline for fact discovery.
B.
Law
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), "[t]he court may, for
good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense, including one or more of the following: (A) forbidding
the disclosure or discovery; (B) specifying terms, including
time and place, for the disclosure or discovery . . . ."
Under
Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(i), "the issuing court must quash or modify a
subpoena that . . . fails to allow a reasonable time to comply."
Finally, under Rules 26(c)(3) and 37(a)(5), the party whose
conduct necessitated a successful motion for protective order -or the attorney who advised that conduct -- is liable to pay the
movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,
including attorney's fees.
C.
Order
Defendant's Motions for Protective Orders (docs. #94, #114)
are granted and Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
(doc. #93) and Motion to Take Depositions (doc. #117) are
granted in part as follows:
4
1.
Plaintiff's counsel stated in open court that plaintiff
does not intend to pursue her claims against Virginia AloscoWerner.
There shall be no further discovery directed to Alosco-
Werner or concerning the claims against her (Counts Seven and
Ten of the Second Amended Complaint (doc. #62)).
2.
Fourteen days after they file their Answer, defendants
shall supplement their responses to plaintiff's August 2012
interrogatories.
3.
Defendants need not respond to the untimely discovery
requests propounded by plaintiff on June 30, 2013 and received
on July 3, 2013.
4.
Plaintiff may not propound further requests for written
discovery.
5. The deposition notices and subpoenas dated June 21, 2013
are quashed for failure to allow reasonable time to comply.
6.
Plaintiff may take the depositions of Greg Pina,
Anthony Iadarola, Carol Desantie and defendant Mayor Boughton on
or before September 30, 2013.
Plaintiff must notice the
depositions at least three weeks prior to the deposition date
and only after conferring in good faith with opposing counsel to
arrive at mutually convenient dates and times.
7.
Plaintiff's counsel shall pay the reasonable attorney's
fees incurred by defendants in filing the Motions for Protective
Orders (docs. #94, #114).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3),
5
37(a)(5).
The parties must meet and confer in a good faith
effort to reach an agreement regarding the reasonable attorney's
fees defendants incurred in the filing of the motion.
If the
parties are unable to agree, upon application at the conclusion
of the case the court will consider the amount of attorney's
fees that should be awarded in connection with these motions.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 25th day of July,
2013.
____________/s/______________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?