Witherspoon v. Jahad et al
RULING denying 66 Motion to Compel; denying 66 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/26/2017. (Lewis, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LEONARD JAHAD, et al.,
CIVIL CASE NO.
MAY 26, 2017
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. NO. 66)
On May 15, 2017, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 66). The
subject of the Motion to Compel was the failure of the defendants to file a privilege log
with respect to the assertion of work product and attorney-client privilege. In light of this
representation, the court denies the Motion to Compel.
However, the court cannot but pause over the fact that defendants’ counsel,
under Rule 11, filed a pleading in which she asserted a privilege in connection with
demand for production of documents, and yet, and there were no privileged documents.
This “feint” by defense counsel has resulted in an inordinate waste of time by plaintiff’s
counsel and the court. In the future, the court expects defense counsel to carefully
review any pleading which is signed, and to desist from asserting privilege in response
to a discovery request when in fact no items are withheld on the basis of privilege.
The second portion of the plaintiff’s Motion is a Motion for Extension of Time
(See Doc. No. 66). In light of the fact that there are no privileged documents being
withheld, there is no need for an extension of time to compel the production of
documents that are asserted as privileged. Therefore the Motion for Extension of Time
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 26th day of May, 2017.
/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge
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?