United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. #41]
AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE [DOC. #51]
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is a Motion to Compel filed by plaintiff
Scott Mirmina (“plaintiff”) seeking additional
responses to certain interrogatories and requests for
production served by plaintiff. [Doc. #41]. Defendant Genpact
LLC (“defendant”) has filed a Memorandum in
Opposition to plaintiff's motion. [Doc. #48]. Plaintiff
has filed a reply. [Doc. #50]. Defendant has also filed a
Motion to Strike plaintiff's reply as untimely. [Doc.
#51]. Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum in Opposition to
defendant's motion, [Doc. #53], and defendant has filed a
reply. [Doc. #55]. For the reasons set forth herein, the
Court DENIES, in part, plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Doc.
#41], and DENIES defendant's Motion to Strike [Doc. #51].
26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth
the scope and limitations of permissible discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The party resisting
discovery bears the burden of showing why discovery should be
denied.” Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster &
Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79, 80 (D. Conn. 2009).
4, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel. [Doc.
#41]. Plaintiff's motion seeks supplemental interrogatory
responses and additional production of documents in response
to plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests
for Production. See Doc. #41. Plaintiff specifically moves
to compel additional responses to Interrogatories 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, and 14; and to Requests for Production 4, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 13, and 14. See Doc. #41-1 at 1.
8, 2017, Judge Alvin W. Thompson referred plaintiff's
Motion to Compel to the undersigned. [Doc. #42]. On May 9,
2017, the undersigned issued an Order requiring any response
to plaintiff's Motion to Compel to be filed on or before
May 22, 2017, and for reply briefing, if any, to be filed on
or before May 25, 2017. See Doc. #43. On May 22, 2017,
defendant filed a response to plaintiff's Motion to
Compel. [Doc. #48]. Defendant contends that on May 8, 2017,
it served supplemental written responses and produced
additional documents in response to plaintiff's requests,
thereby obviating much of the dispute before the Court. See
Doc. #48 at 1.
1, 2017, plaintiff filed a reply, indicating that, of the
interrogatories and requests for production discussed in his
original motion, only three requests for production remain at
issue. See Doc. #50 at 2-3. All other disputes had been
resolved. On June 2, 2017, defendant filed a Motion to Strike
plaintiff's reply, arguing that the Court should not
consider the reply as it was filed late. See Doc. #52 at 1-3.
On June 5, 2017, plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendant's Motion to Strike, arguing, inter alia, that
good cause exists for the untimely filing. See Doc. #53 at 1.
On June 8, 2017, defendant submitted a reply. See Doc. #55.
The Court will address the requests for production still at
issue, as grouped by plaintiff, but will first address
defendant's pending Motion to Strike plaintiff's
Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
has moved to strike plaintiff's reply, arguing that
plaintiff filed the reply beyond the Court-imposed deadline
of May 25, 2017. See Doc. #52 at 1. Defendant argues that
plaintiff has provided no justification for filing the reply
late, and sought no extension of the deadline. See
Id. at 2-4. Thus, defendant argues, the Court should
not consider plaintiff's reply. See Id.
Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion, arguing that
counsel simply committed an administrative error in
calendaring the deadline incorrectly, and thus good cause
exists for the untimely filing. See Doc. #53 at 1. Plaintiff
also argues that no prejudice resulted from the delay. See
Id. at 2.
reply to the Motion to Compel was filed one week late,
without a request for an extension. The Court agrees with
defendant that deadlines are important; indeed, the Court
expended resources in connection with considering and
drafting a ruling resolving a number of discovery requests it
believed were still at issue, before receiving belated
indication that such a ruling was not necessary, from
the Court finds no compelling reason to strike
plaintiff's reply. In large part, plaintiff's reply
serves to confirm that much of the discovery dispute before
the Court was resolved to plaintiff's satisfaction while
his motion was pending. See Doc. #50 at 1. While plaintiff
does bring some factual disagreements to the Court's
attention, the reply raises no new substantive arguments as
to the specific requests still at issue. Instead, it offers
further limitations on their scope. The Court does not see
any prejudice that would result from ...