Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby
Citations: 256 F.R.D. 79; 2009 WL 424737Docket: Civil 3:07CV01377 (CFD)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut; February 8, 2009; Federal District Court
The court ruled on a motion to compel discovery in an age and disability discrimination case following the plaintiff's termination from the defendant's consulting unit. The plaintiff's motion was granted in part and denied in part. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery related to any non-privileged matter relevant to the case. The court found that defendant's late objections to discovery requests were not waived, exercising judicial discretion. The court ordered the defendant to revise certain responses to interrogatories and production requests, clarify its position regarding additional responsive information that may emerge, and timely supplement its discovery responses. The plaintiff's request for time and expense records from specific years was accepted. The court also ordered the defendant to provide available telephone numbers for identified individuals. Additionally, the request for information regarding other age and disability discrimination claims was deemed relevant and granted as limited, with the defendant failing to demonstrate that the narrowed requests were overly broad or burdensome. Plaintiff's contention regarding Interrogatory 6 pertains to the defendant's production of its Code of Conduct, which is addressed under Production Request 19. Interrogatories 10-15 seek information about employees and billable hours from 2001 to the present. The defendant has provided data for a limited period (2005-2006) relevant to the plaintiff's tenure in the Health and Welfare Unit, arguing that supplying further information would be unduly burdensome due to the need for employee identification and redaction of confidential information. The court finds this information sufficient for the plaintiff's performance comparison and evaluation of unit function post-termination, denying the motion to compel regarding these interrogatories. Regarding specific production requests, the defendant claims it has produced all relevant documents for Requests 2, 3, and 22 and has also responded to Requests 16-18. However, for Requests 7-13, the defendant must confirm whether all responsive documents have been produced. For Production Request 19, the defendant has produced its Code of Business Conduct but must provide any additional compensation and benefits documents. Concerning Interrogatory 6, the plaintiff seeks all versions of the Code of Conduct throughout her tenure and post-termination. The defendant has not found earlier versions but must confirm the existence of any subsequent ones due to their potential relevance. For Production Request 23, the defendant has not confirmed whether documents related to its Answer to the Complaint have been produced and must do so if they have not. The court's ruling partially grants and partially denies the plaintiff's motion (dkt. 24), with consideration of reasonable fees to be addressed later in proceedings. This discovery ruling is subject to review under the 'clearly erroneous' standard, and written objections must be filed within ten days of service.