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.

Mirmina v. Genpact LLC

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

June 13, 2017

SCOTT MIRMINA
v.
GENPACT LLC

          RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. #41] AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE [DOC. #51]

          HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pending 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].

         I. Legal Standard

         Rule 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).

         II. Discussion

         On May 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.[1] 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.

         On May 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.

         On June 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 reply.

         A. Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Reply

         Defendant 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.[2]

         Plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's reply.

         However, 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 ...


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.