Hartford et al v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 185

ORDER & RULING re: defendants' motion 121 to compel. See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 8/17/17. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CITY OF HARTFORD and
HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.

3:15cv1544(RNC)

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL
The plaintiffs, the City of Hartford and the Hartford Board of
Education, bring this action pursuant to the Connecticut Products
Liability Act against the defendants, Monsanto Company, Solutia
Inc., and Pharmacia LLC, alleging that the defendants are liable
for PCB contamination at the Clark Elementary School ("Clark" or
"Clark School") in Hartford,

Connecticut.

court is defendants' motion to compel.1

Pending before the

(Doc. #121.)

The court

heard oral argument on August 16, 2017 and rules as follows:
I.

Discovery Requests

A.

Category I
1.

Interrogatories 8, 9 and 10:

During oral argument,

defendants narrowed these requests to Clark School.2 Plaintiffs

1

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny referred the motion to
the undersigned. (Doc. #122.)
2

The requests at issue in this motion initially sought
information about Clark and other schools. At the outset of oral
argument, counsel reported that they had reached an agreement on
plaintiffs' future production of documents that obviates the need
for the court to rule on the "other schools" aspect of the present

stated that they have no objection to the modified requests.

The

motion is granted, absent objection, as to these modified requests.
2.

Interrogatory 20 is withdrawn by the defendants.

3.

Production Requests 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19:

During oral

argument, defendants narrowed these requests to Clark School.
Plaintiffs stated that they have no objection to the modified
requests.

The motion is granted, absent objection, as to these

modified requests.
4.
During

Requests for Admission 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59 and 62:
oral

eliminate

argument,

the

phrase

defendants
"or

other

modified

these

identifying

requests

to

information."

Plaintiffs stated that they are able to admit or deny the modified
requests.
5.

The motion is granted as to these modified requests.
Requests for Admission 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52,

54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 105 and 113
are withdrawn without prejudice by defendants.
6.
argument,
7.

Request

for

Admission

94

is

granted.

During

oral

plaintiffs agreed to serve an amended answer.
Request

for

Admission

97

is

granted.

During

oral

argument, plaintiffs stated that they will admit the request.
B.

Category 2:
1.

The following requests are withdrawn without prejudice by

motion.
In the event that the anticipated production is
unsatisfactory, counsel agree that defendants may pursue the "other
schools" discovery at a later time.
2

defendants:
Interrogatories 11, 12, 13, 23, 25;
Production Requests 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 23 - 31, 34,
37 - 39, 43 - 45; and
Requests for Admissions 1-17, 28, 75, 90, 106 - 123, 131, 132,
135.
C.

Category 3:
1.

Interrogatory

24

and

Production

Requests

9

and

11:

During oral argument, defendants limited these requests to Clark
School.

Plaintiffs stated that they have no objection to the

modified requests.

The motion is granted, absent objection, as to

these modified requests.
D.

Category 4:
1.

Production Request 8 is withdrawn by defendants in light

of the parties' resolution of the request.
E.

Category 5:
1.

Production Request 47 is withdrawn by defendants in light

of the parties' resolution of the request.
In accordance with Local Rule 37(d), plaintiffs shall serve
amended responses by no later than August 31, 2017.

D. Conn. L.

Civ. R. 37(d) ("Unless a different time is set by the Court,
compliance with discovery ordered by the Court shall be made within
fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Court's order.")

3

II.

Remaining Disputes
The court denied defendants' motion to compel as to Ross

Hartman (doc. #146) in light of the change in his status.
#181.)

(Doc.

As discussed on the record during oral argument, if the

parties are unable to reach agreement regarding discovery requests
propounded to Hartman after his change in status, the parties agree
that by August 18, 2017, defendants shall file a revised, updated
motion to compel Hartman's responses to the current, operative
discovery requests.

Any new motion shall set forth in the body of

the accompanying memorandum (1) the specific, verbatim text of each
discovery request at issue, followed by (2) the opposing party's
response and/or objection, and (3) "the reason why the item should
be allowed." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)(1).

Plaintiffs' response

shall be filed by August 30, 2017.
The parties are reminded of their meet and confer obligations
under both the federal and local rules of procedure to resolve any
differences and present to the court only those issues of discovery
that are necessary for the full weight of judicial authority. Fed.
R.

Civ.

P.

37

requires

that

a

motion

to

compel

"include

a

certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court
action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

Local Rule 37 provides:

"No

motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P. shall be

4

filed unless counsel making the motion has conferred, in person or
by telephone, with opposing counsel and discussed the discovery
issues between them in detail in a good faith effort to eliminate
or reduce the area of controversy, and to arrive at a mutually
satisfactory

resolution."

D.

Conn.

L.

Civ.

R.

37(a).

The

importance of the meet and confer requirement cannot be overstated:
it "ensures that when limited court resources are taxed to address
discovery disputes, they are in fact ripe for determination, the
issues have been framed for the ease of the court, and the parties
are firmly convinced of their inability to arrive at a mutually
acceptable compromise among themselves." Cornell Research Found.,
Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55, 59 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 17th day of August,
2017.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

5