United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL
F. MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiffs, the City of Hartford and the Hartford Board of
Education, bring this action pursuant to the Connecticut
Products Liability Act against the defendants, Monsanto
Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia LLC, alleging that the
defendants are liable for PCB contamination at the Clark
Elementary School in Hartford, Connecticut. Pending before
the court is defendants' motion to compel. (Doc. #187.)
The motion encompasses two separate issues: (1) a request to
compel plaintiff's expert, Ross Hartman
("Hartman"), to produce certain documents and (2) a
challenge to the plaintiffs' privilege log. The court
heard oral argument on October 25, 2017.
defendants seek to compel Hartman to comply with production
requests 26, 27, and 31 and to submit to another deposition.
Production Request 26 seeks presentations (and related notes)
Hartman gave on PCBs. The plaintiffs'
objections as to overbreadth and relevance are
overruled. The plaintiffs also object on the grounds that the
request "vastly exceeds the bounds of proper expert
witness discovery" and cite as support Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(4)(C). (Doc. #194 at 12.) That rule, however,
provides "work-product protection against discovery
regarding draft expert disclosures or reports and - with
three specific exceptions - communications between expert
witnesses and counsel." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 advisory
committee's note to 2010 amendment. The plaintiffs'
reliance on this rule to preclude the defendants' request
for Hartman's presentations is misplaced. The
plaintiffs' objection is overruled.
Production Request 27 concerns pilot projects in which
Hartman participated and, as narrowed by the defendants
during oral argument, seeks summary reports (and attachments)
issued to clients. The plaintiffs' objections, the same
asserted in response to Request 26, are overruled.
Production Request 31 seeks communications and documents of
Hartman or SES or any other company with which he was
associated related to environmental consulting services
provided to Moosup Elementary. The plaintiffs'
objections, the same asserted in response to Request 26, are
defendants' motion to compel Hartman to comply with
production requests 26, 27 and 31 and to submit to another
deposition is granted.
second aspect of defendants' motion concerns the
plaintiffs' privilege log. (Doc. #187, Ex. M.) Initially
the defendants requested that the court conduct an in
camera review of the entire log because the entries did
not appear to reflect proper invocation of either work
production protection or attorney-client privilege. However,
during oral argument, defendants narrowed their request for
an in camera review of the following six documents: