GEOMC Co, Ltd. v. Competitive Technologies, Inc.

Filing 77

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 06/15/2015. (LaPre, E.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
GEOMC CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALMARE THERAPEUTICS
INCORPORATED
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-01222-VAB

JUNE 15, 2015

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff GEOMC Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) moved under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37 to compel Defendant Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated (“Defendant”) to
provide complete answers to its Second Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”) and
for sanctions against Defendant for its failure to comply with its discovery obligations
and an order of this Court. The Court held a telephonic status conference on June 15,
2015, and during that conference granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion.
The Court ruled that Defendant’s responses to the Interrogatories were evasive or
incomplete, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), and ordered Defendant to supplement its
responses. The Court did not enter sanctions against Defendant, but ordered that
Plaintiff may recover its reasonable expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A).
II.

BACKGROUND & RULING
GEOMC sold CTI certain medical devices under a license agreement. CTI has

not paid GEOMC the full purchase price of the devices, or returned the devices to

1

GEOMC. CTI denies any obligation to provide full payment for the devices or return
them, at least in part because it claims that some of the devices are defective.
Plaintiff served the Interrogatories on Defendant on February 9, 2015. The
Interrogatories consisted of seven inquiries requesting, inter alia, four individuals’ job
responsibilities and the factual bases upon which CTI determined that these individuals
had knowledge concerning the contractual arrangement between CTI and GEOMC.
As of April 21, 2015, Defendant had not responded to the Interrogatories. That
day, the Court held a telephonic status conference and ordered CTI to respond to the
Interrogatories on or before May 1, 2015, or notify the Court why it could not practicably
respond by that date. Defendant sent Plaintiff its responses on Saturday, May 2 without
notifying the Court why it could not respond earlier. By letter dated May 4, 2015,
Defendant’s counsel notified the Court that the delay in complying with the Court’s order
was due in part to CTI providing incomplete answers to its counsel.
On May 5, 2015, before Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel, Defendant
advised Plaintiff that it would supplement its responses to certain questions, but
believed that its responses to the rest of the questions were complete.
Plaintiff nonetheless filed the instant Motion to Compel on May 5, 2015
contending that Defendant’s answers to the Interrogatories were incomplete and
evasive. Plaintiff complained that Defendant failed to identify the duration of one
individual’s employment, failed to identify the job responsibilities of three individuals,
and failed to provide the factual bases upon which CTI determined that the individuals
had knowledge concerning the contractual arrangement between CTI and GEOMC.
Defendant’s answers generally provided only the individuals’ job titles, rather than

2

describing their job responsibilities and knowledge of the facts of this case. Plaintiff also
sought sanctions against Defendant because of its failure to comply timely with its
discovery obligations and with the Court’s April 21, 2015 order.
The Court held telephonic status conferences on May 7, 2015 and May 15, 2015
to resolve this and other disputes.
On May 19, 2015, Defendant served supplemental responses on Plaintiff,
identifying the duration of one individual’s employment and elaborating on that
individual’s job responsibilities. Defendant did not supplement its responses with
respect to the other four individuals. Defendant maintained that its answers were
complete at that time.
The Court held a telephonic status conference on June 15, 2015 to resolve this
and several other pending motions. During that conference, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the instant Motion to Compel. The Court granted the Motion to
Compel on the ground that Defendant’s answers to the Interrogatories were evasive or
incomplete, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), in that they failed to identify with sufficient
particularity the relevant individuals’ job responsibilities and the factual bases upon
which CTI concluded that these individuals had knowledge of the parties’ contractual
arrangements. See Cathay Pac. Airways, Ltd. v. Fly & See Travel, Inc., No. 90 CIV.
0371 (JES), 1991 WL 156381, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 1991) (granting motion to compel
where defendants initially did not respond to interrogatories and then, after court
expressly ordered defendant to respond to interrogatories during a conference, gave
evasive and incomplete answers).

3

The Court denied sanctions because the parties’ ongoing settlement negotiations
and the difficulties of communication and cooperation between CTI and its counsel
primarily caused the delay in responding to the Interrogatories, and because CTI’s oneday delay in complying with the Court’s April 21, 2015 order was not sufficiently
egregious to warrant sanctions. See World Wide Polymers, Inc. v. Shinkong Synthetic
Fibers Corp., 694 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 2012) (imposing sanctions for discovery
misconduct is within discretion of district court); Leftridge v. Bourgeois, No. 3:07CV1166
VLB, 2012 WL 2016188, at *1 (D. Conn. June 5, 2012) (denying request for sanctions
where plaintiff merely failed to answer properly certain interrogatories).
Finally, the Court ruled that Plaintiff could recover its reasonable expenses,
including attorneys’ fees, incurred in moving to compel Defendant to supplement its
answers, because, barring circumstances not present here, such an award is
mandatory under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Mantell v. Chassman, 512 F. App'x 21, 24 (2d Cir.
2013) (“[A] court must order a sanction under Rule 37(a)(5) if it is forced to grant a
motion to compel discovery or the requested discovery is provided after such a motion
was filed.”); Cathay Pac. Airways, Ltd., 1991 WL 156381, at *4 (awarding reasonable
expenses to party who brought motion to compel against party who provided evasive
and incomplete answers to interrogatories after Court expressly ordered more complete
responses during a conference).
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this fifteenth day of June, 2015.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4