Verdone v. Greenleaf Biofuels, LLC et al
ORDER concerning discovery. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 3/20/2017. (Ghosh, S.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
AMERICAN GREENFUELS, LLC
March 20, 2017
ORDER CONCERNING DISCOVERY
Plaintiff, Cheryl Verdone, filed this action against Defendant, the successor by merger of her
former employer Greenleaf Biofuels (“Greenleaf”), alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.; the Equal Pay Act,
29 U.S.C. § 206(d) et seq.; and Connecticut statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment. See
Compl., ECF No. 1. She also alleges promissory estoppel and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Ms. Verdone alleges that Greenleaf hired her as an administrator in February 2012, but that she soon
became “Greenleaf’s resource for all human resources matters.” Id. at ¶ 38. Ms. Verdone worked in this
capacity until November 13, 2015, when Greenleaf terminated her employment. Id. at ¶ 85. While
working at Greenleaf, Ms. Verdone maintained Greenleaf’s personnel files and had access to other
company documents. Id. at ¶ 40.
On March 7, 2017, the parties jointly requested a conference with the Court to discuss a discovery
dispute. The Court conducted this conference on March 20, 2017. This dispute concerns a set of
Defendant’s documents that Ms. Verdone retained on a personal laptop that she sometimes used for work.
The parties dispute whether Ms. Verdone improperly retained the documents in the first place, but agree
that she should not have retained the documents after she finished working for Defendant. The parties
represented that two sets of documents are at issue. The first set includes more than 1,400 pages of
personnel files and other records of Defendant. Plaintiff sent a paper copy of this set of documents to
Defendant and retained an electronic copy herself. There is also a second set of documents that may
belong to Defendant, which Plaintiff has uploaded to a document-review platform but has not reviewed
nor shared with Defendant.
Consistent with this Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket with a “view toward the
efficient and expedient resolution of cases,” Deitz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016), the Court
hereby addresses the parties’ arguments as follows:
Plaintiff argues that the first set of records may contain some documents that are responsive to
Plaintiff’s discovery and would like to keep a record of the documents herself. Defendant argues that
Plaintiff should return the documents to Defendant, who will produce any responsive documents from the
set if Plaintiff serves requests for production. The Court agrees with Defendant. Plaintiff is ORDERED
to delete her electronic copy of this set of documents and send Defendant verification of the electronic
deletion by March 24, 2017.
Plaintiff argues that she should be able to review the second set of documents to determine
whether any of her own documents are included. Plaintiff further argues that she should be able to
catalog the documents and retain a copy. Defendant argues that Plaintiff should return this set of
documents without reviewing it. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to return the second set of documents to
Defendant without cataloging or applying Bates Numbers, but after reviewing the documents to ensure
that none of Plaintiff’s own documents are included, by April 7, 2017.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 20th day of March, 2017.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden______________
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
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?