United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANT 1 BURR ROAD OPERATING COMPANY II,
LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. #71).
Glazer Margolis United States Magistrate Judge.
November 7, 2016, plaintiff commenced this employment
discrimination action against defendant 1 Burr Road Operating
Company II, LLC [“BROC”] and Senior Philanthropy
of Westport, LLC [“SPW”] in the Superior Court
for the Judicial District of Waterbury; this action was
removed to this court on December 6, 2016 by defendant BROC.
(Dkt. #1). On March 1, 2017, plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint (Dkt. #34), in which he asserts the following six
counts: disability discrimination in violation of Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 46(a)-60(a)(1) against defendant BROC (Count
One); retaliation in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §
31-290a against defendant BROC (Count Two); retaliation in
violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46(a)-60(a)(4) against
defendant BROC (Count Three); and the same three allegations
against defendant SPW (Counts Four-Six). Nine days later,
defendant SPW filed a Motion to Dismiss the three counts
asserted against it (Dkt. #35; see also Dkts.
##37-38, 49, 53, 56, 58, 60-61), and on December 8, 2017,
U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton granted SPW's
motion. (Dkt. #104).
October 24, 2017, defendant BROC filed the pending Motion to
Compel with exhibits in support (Dkt. #71),  and the next day,
this motion was referred to this Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #74;
see also Dkt. #94). On November 16, 2017, plaintiff
filed his brief in opposition. (Dkt. #80; see
Dkts. ##78-79, 81-82). Discovery is scheduled to close in
this case on February 2, 2018, and the dispositive motions
are due by March 2, 2018. (Dkt. #105).
reasons stated below, defendant BROC's Motion to Compel
(Dkt. #71) is granted in part and denied in part.
December 11, 2017, this Magistrate Judge issued an order on
defendant's Motion to Complete Plaintiff's Deposition
Outside of the Discovery Period and Extend the Summary
Judgment Deadline, and on plaintiff's Third Motion for
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, granting in part
both motions such that all depositions and discovery shall be
completed on or before February 2, 2018, and all dispositive
motions shall be filed on or before March 2, 2018. (Dkt. #105
[“December 11, 2017 Order”]). Accordingly, in
light of the December 11, 2017 Order, defendant BROC's
pending motion is moot to the extent that it seeks to compel
plaintiff to appear for his deposition in November, and the
to the extent it seeks to extend the summary judgment
deadline. (Dkt. #71, at 2, 7-8). The remaining issue for the
Court is the production of responses to defendant BROC's
discovery requests. (Id. at 2).
5, 2017, defendant BROC served on plaintiff its First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production. (Dkt. #71, at 2
& Exh. 1). Twelve days later, plaintiff filed a notice of
pro se appearance (see Dkt. #44), and the
next day, the Court granted plaintiff's prior
counsel's motions to withdraw. (Dkt. #45; see
also Dkt. #71, at 2-3) Shortly thereafter, plaintiff
informed defense counsel that he would not produce his
responses to defendant's discovery requests until he
hired a new lawyer. (Dkt. #71, at 3 & Exh. 3). On June
23, 2017, defendant BROC filed a Motion to Compel responses
to its discovery requests (Dkt. #47), and on July 10, 2017,
plaintiff's current counsel filed an appearance on
plaintiff's behalf. (Dkt. #48; see also Dkt.
#71, at 3). On August 17, 2017, plaintiff filed a response to
that Motion to Compel, in which he stated that he was in the
process of responding, which he expected to be completed by
August 18, 2017. (Dkt. #71, at 3-4; Dkt. #57; see
also Dkts. ##51, 53, 55). On August 21, 2017, without
having served his responses on August 18, 2017 as promised,
plaintiff's counsel requested a postponement of
plaintiff's deposition, and two days later, informed the
Court that he planned to serve his responses to the discovery
requests that day. (Dkt. #71, at 4 & Exhs. 7-8, 10). On
August 28, 2017, plaintiff's counsel produced
plaintiff's discovery responses. (See Dkt. #71,
at 4 & Exh. 9; Dkt. #80, at 1; see also Dkt.
#71, Exh. 8). Thereafter, on September 12, 2017, counsel
discussed deficiencies in plaintiff's discovery responses
(Dkt. #71, at 5), however, plaintiff's counsel did not
respond to additional attempts by defense counsel to discuss
the outstanding discovery. (Id. at 5-6 & Exhs.
12, 14, 16). Defendant now moves to compel responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 1, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 14, and responses to
Requests for Production Nos. 12 and 23. (Dkt. #71, at 8-14).
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Interrogatory No. 1, defendant seeks background information
relating to plaintiff's work history from January 1, 2007
to the present. (Dkt. #71, at 8-10 & Exh. 9 at
1-2).Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on
grounds that it is “vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not
limited in scope or relevance and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence[, ]”
and plaintiff responds that he was employed with defendant
until December 31, 2014. (Id.; see Dkt.
#80, at 3, n.1). Defendant contends that this interrogatory
seeks information relating to plaintiff's work history
which is relevant to his alleged damages and the mitigation
thereof. (Dkt. #71, at 10). In his Damages Analysis,
plaintiff seeks lost wages from December 31, 2014 to the
present. (Dkt. #80, Exh.). Accordingly, to the extent
defendant seeks information about work history prior to the
period for which plaintiff is seeking damages,
defendant's request is overly broad. On or
before January 2, 2018, plaintiff shall
supplement his response to provide information, if any,
relating to his work history from December 31, 2014 through
INTERROGATORIES NOS. 6 & 10
Interrogatory No. 6, defendant seeks a description, in
detail, of the nature, category and amount of damages
plaintiff seeks in this action, “stating separately and
with particularity specific dollar amounts, the amounts of
damages [plaintiff is] claiming for lost income, salary and
benefits (and the precise method concerning how [plaintiff]
calculated those damages).” (Dkt. #71, at 10-11 &
Exh. 9 at 4). Similarly, in Interrogatory No. 10, defendant
seeks the source, amount, and date of receipt of all
“remuneration, earnings, property (real or personal),
funds and/or other monies” plaintiff has applied for,
received, was eligible for, or accepted from January 1, 2014
to the present. (Dkt. #71, at 10-11 & Exh. 9 at 5).
Plaintiff has served his Damages Analysis (Dkt. #80, Exh.) in
which he itemized his lost wages, legal fees, and
compensatory damages, less his unemployment compensation.
Accordingly, defendant's request to compel responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 10 is denied as
INTERROGATORIES NOS. 9 & 12
Interrogatory No. 9, defendant seeks information concerning
plaintiff's social media presence, including “all
social networking sites . . . [plaintiff has] used since
January 1, 2007, including the period of time” each
site was used, “the username used on such site, and the
URL address associated with [plaintiff's] personal page
for each social networking site . . . used.” (Dkt. #71,
at 11-12 & Exh. 9 at 5). In Interrogatory No. 12,
defendant seeks the identification of all URL addresses
through which plaintiff conducts business selling his
artwork. (Dkt. #71, at 11-16 & Exh. 9 at 6). Plaintiff
objects to theses requests on grounds that defendant is on a
“[ten] year fishing expedition, ” and defendant
has not “explain[ed] the good faith reason to obtain
the requested information[.]” (Dkt. #80, at 6).
Defendant asserts that these responses “would allow
BROC to review [plaintiff's] public internet presence for
any information relevant to his legal claims, damages claims
(including with respect to his alleged emotional distress),
and its defenses.” (Dkt. #71, at 12). Additionally,
defendant argues that it “seeks only the username
and/or URL addresses, not the content of any
privately-maintained information[.]” (Id.).
have permitted the discovery of social media account
information that may reflect a “plaintiff's
emotional or mental state, [the plaintiff's] physical
condition, activity level, employment, this litigation, and
the injuries and damages claimed.” Reid v. Ingerman
Smith, LLP, No. CV-201-0307(ILG)(MDG), 2012 WL 6720752,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012)(Go, MJ)(internal quotations
& citation omitted); see also Caputi v. Topper Realty
Corp., No. 14 CV 2634(JFB)(SIL), 2015 WL 893663, at *5-8
(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015)(Locke, MJ). See generally
Marsteller v. Butterfield 8 Stamford LLC, No. 14 CV 1371
(AWT), 2017 WL 5769903, at *3-4 (D. Conn. Nov. 27,
2017)(Merriam, MJ); Silva v. Dick's Sporting Goods,
Inc., No. 14 CV 580 (WWE), 2015 WL 1275840, at *2 (D.
Conn. Mar. 19, 2015)(Garfinkel, MJ). In this case, defendant
does not seek privately maintained information, thereby not
implicating plaintiff's broader privacy concerns. See
Marsteller, 2017 WL 5769903, at *4 (requiring social
media passwords constitutes a “wholesale invasion of .
. . privacy”); see also Giacchetto v.
Patchogue-Medford Union Free Sch. Dist., 293 F.R.D. 112,
115-16 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)(Tomlinson, MJ)(limiting the disclosure
of some social media posts, but denying “unfettered
access to [p]laintiff's social networking history . . .
simply because [p]laintiff has a claim for emotional distress
damages”). Defendant's limited request for a list
of social media sites and the usernames he has used as well
as the URLs of sites he has used to sell his artwork ...