United States District Court, D. Connecticut
LAUREN E. MARSTELLER
BUTTERFIELD 8 STAMFORD LLC, et al.
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. #92]
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Butterfield 8 Stamford LLC, Public House Investments LLC,
John Gazzola, Douglas Newhook, and Ryan Slavin
(“defendants”) have filed a motion seeking to compel
plaintiff to (1) provide authorizations for release of her
medical records and (2) provide access to her social media
accounts or, in the alternative, copies of certain social
media communications. [Doc. #92]. Plaintiff has filed a
memorandum in opposition to defendants' Motion to Compel
[Doc. #97]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part,
defendants' Motion to Compel.
brings this action asserting claims of sexual harassment and
retaliation under Title VII and Connecticut law; violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut Wage and Hour
Act; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and common
law privacy claims. See generally Doc. #7. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants Douglas Newhook and Ryan Slavin, both
employees of the other defendants, repeatedly sexually
harassed her, watched her changing her clothes on a company
security camera in a private office, and showed the video of
her changing clothes to other employees of defendants.
See id. Plaintiff alleges that she experienced
“severe emotional distress” as a result of this
conduct. Id. at 11, 14, 16.
October 10, 2017, Judge Alvin W. Thompson referred this
matter to the undersigned to address discovery issues.
See Doc. #78. On October 20, 2017, the Court held a
telephonic status conference. See Doc. #89.
Following that conference, the Court set a deadline of
November 14, 2017, for the filing of any motions to compel.
See Doc. #91. Defendants timely filed a motion to
compel, and plaintiff filed an objection. See Docs.
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 advisory committee's notes
to the recent amendment of Rule 26 further explain that
[a] party claiming that a request is important to resolve the
issues should be able to explain the ways in which the
underlying information bears on the issues as that party
understands them. The court's responsibility, using all
the information provided by the parties, is to consider these
and all the other factors in reaching a case-specific
determination of the appropriate scope of discovery.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee's note to 2015
amendment. Nevertheless, “[t]he 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).
Motion to Compel Disclosure of Medical
seek to compel plaintiff to provide a response to the
following request for production: “Request No. 4:
Copies of any and all hospital and/or treatment records and
bills regarding the Plaintiff's medical treatment ...
relating to the injuries described in the Complaint.”
Doc. #92-3 at 3 (cited in Doc. #92-1 at 2). Defendants
request that plaintiff execute an Authorization for Release
of Health Information that would allow them to access her
medical files directly, as a response to this request.