Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Verdone v. American Greenfuels, LLC

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

September 6, 2017



          Victor A. Bolden United States District Judge

          Cheryl 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.

         On 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.

         This 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.

         Since 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.

         I. Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories

         A. Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 8

         Interrogatory 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.

         Since 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 period.

         The 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. 8.

         B. 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.

         C. 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 ...

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.