Ferrari v. U.S. Equities Corp. et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying without prejudice 35 Motion to Compel. See deadlines. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/28/14. (Nichols, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LIZ FERRARI,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. EQUITIES CORP. et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:13CV395(RNC)

RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff Liz Ferrari brings this action under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et
seq. and the Connecticut Creditors' Collection Practices Act,
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-645 et seq. ("CCPA") and the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") alleging improprieties in
connection with a small claims action that defendants initiated
in the state court.

(Doc. #1.)

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

responses to her second set of discovery requests (doc. #35) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the court orders as follows.1
1. Defendants withdrew their objections to Interrogatory
#12 and Document Request #8 at oral argument.

They shall serve

their responses to those requests by the D. Conn. L. Civ. R.
37(d) deadline.

1

District Judge Robert N. Chatigny referred the case to the
undersigned for all pretrial matters. (Doc. #9.)

2. No later than 14 days after a decision on the pending
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. #18), counsel shall
meet and confer to design a cooperative solution to their
dispute over the remaining requests.

The compromise should

provide plaintiff with a clear picture of the frequency with
which defendants' conduct in the underlying state litigation was
repeated in other state lawsuits without placing a research
burden on defendants' small business that is disproportionate to
the size and needs of the case.2
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 28th day of
January, 2014.
________________/s/___________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

2

The court does not anticipate further motions practice on
this issue. If, in any future instance, defendants intend to
argue that discovery requests are unduly burdensome, they must
submit affidavits or other evidence revealing the nature of the
burden. See, e.g., Coale v. Metro North R. Co., No.
3:09CV2065(CSH), 2011 WL 1870237, at *3 (D. Conn. May 16, 2011);
Schiavone v. Northeast Utilities Service Co., No.
3:08CV429(AWT)(DFM), 2010 WL 382537, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 27,
2010).
2