United States District Court, D. Connecticut
LAUREN E. MARSTELLER
BUTTERFIELD 8 STAMFORD LLC, et al.
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. #94]
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Lauren E. Marsteller (“plaintiff”) has filed a
motion seeking to compel defendants Butterfield 8 Stamford
LLC, Public House Investments LLC, Lolas Stamford LLC, and
John Gazzola (“defendants”) to provide tax
returns or other financial and corporate documents responsive
to her Document Requests Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 17.
See Doc. #94-1 at 1. Defendants have filed a
memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion. [Doc.
#96]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part,
plaintiff's 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 “the Defendants shared a common management
and were centrally controlled and/or owned by
Defendants.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff further
alleges that defendants “are part of a single
integrated enterprise that jointly employed Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees at all times relevant to this
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. Plaintiff timely filed a motion to
compel, and defendants 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 Tax Returns
seeks to compel defendants to provide “tax returns or
other financial and corporate documents in order to
demonstrate the complete ownership and control of those
corporate entities and the businesses they operate[.]”