Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

1 · Case 3:03-cv-00315CH er Document 67 Filed 12/O1/2003 Page 1 of 3
I O .
l
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Q
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
JOHN J. CHAPMAN EBU} {IEC ·· I P !2= 20 1
V. CASE NOp.53;03Cv_p.316_ (JCH)
I _ ' ‘ _
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
y CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A. December 1, 2003 I
PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDERS:
As verified by Chase’s Ex. Q, p. 95, the Court anticipated that all discovery A
I l
would be exchanged within 30 days of August 19, 2003. As admitted by Chase’s overly r
l bulky Doc. No. 57 filing, Chase has not yet complied with Production requests 9, 15, 16,
17, 25, 26, and 27.l Chase contends that it need not produce those documents because there
is no confidentiality order. A confidentiality order was in place for a month, Doc. No. 54.
Instead of providing the documents, Chase had the confidentiality Order vacated, when it
could have been left in place and modified. Doc. No. 55. A party’s attorney may not i
"arrogate[] control of discovery to himself. . . and change the date of compliance to suit I
his own convenience and that of his client.” Damiani v. R.I. Hosp., 704 F.2d l2, 16 (lst
. Car. 1983). p A 1
The other parties are proceeding as if the confidentiality order were in place, as the
Court repeatedly made very clear it would be. Ex. Q at 11, lines 1-4; 30 lines 16-17.
l
I
l
e provided the interrogatory responses to the extent they asked for
identification ofthe personnel involved.
I
l
`

n
A Case 3:03-cv-OO3’@§JCH Document 67 Filed 12/(@7*5003 Page 2 of 3 _
Chase has still not provided a response to interrogatory 8, as ordered. Its failure to `
provide a decoded translation of the items on the account records, in particular who did I
what on what date, was called to its attention by Def. Ex P. Compare account records, Def 1
Ex. E at Bates 6-10, with Def. Ex K which begins at line 23 and does not include the
account records at Bates 6 or 10.
Plaintiff should not have to file a Rule 37 motion to elicit compliance with orders
entered over two months previously, on August 19, 2003. Defendant’s belated and partial
i compliance with interrogatories, and admitted noncompliance with production requests is i
contrary to discovery principles and interferes with the Court’s ability to control its docket,
as well as the parties’ ability to process the case speedily and economically. 1
THE PLAINTIFF y
l
L BY -»~<·,aaa./ f/QL
JOANNE S. FAULKNER ct04137 l
123 Avon Street I
New Haven, CT 06511
(203) 772-0395
l
l
1. l

I
LI Case 3:03-cv-OO3{ۤJCH Document 67 Filed 12/Q1/$2003 Page 3 of 3 I
This is to certify that the foregoing was mailed on November 29, 2003, postage I
I prepaid, to:
I Thomas Stagg
I Simmons, Jannace & Stagg ,
90 Merrick Ave # 102
East Meadow NY 1 1554
Michelle Blum
Jones Day I
I 3 Park Plaza #1100 I
Irvine CA 92614-5976 I
Joanne S. Faulkner I
` I
l I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
N I
I
I
I
I
__ I I