United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER CONCERNING DISCOVERY AND AMENDING
A. Bolden United States District Judge
Verdone (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against
American Greenfuels, LLC (“Defendant”), the
successor by merger of her former employer Greenleaf Biofuels
(“Greenleaf”), alleging, as amended, 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 Amend. Compl., ECF No. 93. Plaintiff
also alleges claims pertaining to promissory estoppel and the
intentional (or negligent) infliction of emotional distress.
August 9, 2017, the parties jointly requested a discovery
conference to address the Defendant's objections to
Plaintiff's First Set Of Interrogatories and Requests For
Production and the scope of Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) topics.
Joint Mot. for Discovery Conference, ECF 89 (“Joint
Mot.”). Additionally, the parties disputed the
Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum, addressed to
third-party Kolmar Americas, Inc. (“Kolmar”), and
redactions to medical and counseling records sought by the
defendant. Id. The Court conducted this conference
by telephone on September 1, 2017. Minute Entry, ECF No. 102.
conference was the third such telephonic discovery
conference; the other two were held on March 20, 2017 and May
31, 2017. See Order Concerning Discovery, ECF No.
71; Minute Entry, ECF No. 69; Minute Entry, ECF No. 80. This
most recent conference was held after counsel had “met
and conferred on May 11, 2017, and again on July 5, 2017, and
again on August 8, 2017, but were unable to resolve the
[outstanding] issues.” Joint Mot. at 3. In short, the
parties are having considerable difficulty managing the
discovery process without judicial intervention.
this Court possesses 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 finds it necessary to
address as many of these outstanding discovery issues as soon
as practicable to avoid further delay in this case.
Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 8
No. 8 requests that Defendant identify persons who
participated in decisions to hire and fire employees. While
Defendant does not suggest that the request is inappropriate
in its entirety, the parties disagree about the proper scope
of this discovery request. Plaintiff seeks discovery from
January 1, 2011 until December 15, 2015; Defendant has
offered to answer the interrogatory pertaining to the period
from February 1, 2012 until January 1, 2015.
the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from at February 1,
2012 through November 2014, Amend. Compl. at ¶ 7, the
Court sees no reason why discovery should not be provided at
least within that time frame. Moreover, since Defendant has
further agreed to provide discovery until January 1, 2015,
there is no reason not to extend discovery until that time
only remaining question is whether discovery should be
allowed before February 1, 2012 and after January 1, 2015
until December 15, 2015, as Plaintiff has requested. At this
stage, nothing presented in Plaintiff's filings or oral
presentation on September 1st suggested that
discovery on this issue before February 1, 2012 is necessary,
at least, on this issue. As a result, the Court will not
order discovery on Interrogatory No. 8 before February 1,
2012. The Court, however, will permit discovery on
Interrogatory No. 8 until December 15, 2015. To the extent
that Defendant claim that no documents exist or can be
located after January 1, 2015 and can properly attest to this
fact, Defendant should do so in response to Interrogatory No.
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 10
Interrogatory No. 10 requests the name, gender, title, dates
of employment and compensation level of Defendant's
employees. Id. at 2. On this discovery request, the
parties also disagree as to the appropriate time frame. For
reasons similar to the Court's decision with respect to
Interrogatory No. 8, the Court finds that the applicable
starting time period is February 1, 2012. For the reasons
discussed on the September 1st call, the Court,
however, limits this time period to until January 1, 2015.
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 12
Interrogatory No. 12 requests the names, gender, title, and
gender of replacement of all employees demoted or discharged.
Id. Plaintiff has sought information on employees
involuntarily terminated between 2012 until 2016; Defendant
has offered to provide information about ...