Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hauser v. General Cable Industries, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

May 25, 2017

DAVID HAUSER, Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL CABLE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

          RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL

          Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge

         The plaintiff brings this action against his former employer, General Cable Industries, Inc., alleging that the defendant violated the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2612 et seq. and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 et seq. Pending before the court is the defendant's motion to compel.[1] (Doc. #34.)

         I. Procedural Background

         On December 14, 2016, the defendant served its First Set of Discovery Requests. The plaintiff's responses were due January 13, 2017. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). On December 27, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time until February 13, 2017 in which to respond to the requests. (Doc. #21.) The court granted the motion. (Doc. #23.)

         When plaintiff did not meet the deadline, defense counsel both called and emailed plaintiff's counsel. (Doc. #34, Baskin Aff. ¶6.) On February 28, 2017, plaintiff's counsel served some responses to defendant's discovery requests. (Baskin Aff. ¶7.)

         On March 6, 2017, defense counsel contacted plaintiff's counsel regarding deficiencies in the plaintiff's discovery responses. (Baskin Aff. ¶11.) On March 10, 2017, the parties conferred. (Baskin Aff. ¶13.) Plaintiff's counsel stated that he would speak to the plaintiff in the next couple of days and agreed to produce all outstanding information. (Baskin Aff. ¶13.)

         As of March 20, 2017, defense counsel still had not received plaintiff's supplemental responses and contacted plaintiff's counsel. (Baskin Aff. ¶14.) On March 28, 2017, counsel spoke. (Baskin Aff. ¶16.) Plaintiff's counsel disclosed that he had been unable to reach his client. He said that the supplemental responses would be provided once he was able to contact the plaintiff. (Baskin Aff. ¶16.)

         On April 7, 2017, defense counsel again contacted plaintiff's counsel regarding the outstanding discovery responses. (Baskin Aff. ¶18.) Plaintiff's counsel reported that he was still unable to reach his client but had sent him a certified letter. (Baskin Aff. ¶19.) Plaintiff's counsel produced some supplemental responses.[2] (Doc. #34, Ex. I.)

         II. Discussion

         On April 24, 2017, the defendant filed the instant motion. As relief, the defendant seeks to compel the plaintiff to provide complete responses to Interrogatories 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17 and Requests for Production 13, 15, 17, 23 and 35 - 37. The defendant also requests an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5).

         The plaintiff's opposition to the defendant's motion to compel was due May 18, 2017. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7 ("memoranda in opposition to any motion shall be filed with twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the motion.") The plaintiff filed nothing in response to the defendant's motion.[3] The defendant's motion to compel is GRANTED. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7 ("Failure to submit a memorandum in opposition to a motion may be deemed sufficient cause to grant the motion . . . .") Plaintiff shall serve complete responses to the discovery requests at issue within 14 days of this order. See 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 days of the filing of the Court's order.").

         The defendant also requests an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in making the instant motion. If a motion to compel discovery is granted,

the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees. But the court must not order this payment if:
(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.