Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00452-CFD

Document 42

Filed 11/03/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DAVID RURAN, Plaintiff, V. BETH EL TEMPLE OF WEST HARTFORD, INC., Defendant : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO 3:03 CV 452 (CFD)

November 3, 2005

SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR EXPENSES Plaintiff, David Ruran, hereby supplements his Opposition to Defendant's Objection to Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Expenses, dated March 29, 2005. On February 23, 2005, the Honorable Thomas P. Smith, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Ruling granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and awarding to Plaintiff the expenses incurred in bringing the Motion. Defendant, Beth El Temple of West Hartford, Inc., objected to Magistrate Smith's Ruling, and Plaintiff opposed Defendant's Objection on March 29, 2005. At this time, despite the passage of more than eight months, Defendant has still refused to comply with the portions of Magistrate Smith's Ruling to which it did not object. In fact, despite the passage of more than two and a half years since the commencement of this action,1 and two years since Plaintiff served his discovery requests upon Defendant,2 Defendant has still not provided any initial disclosures in accordance with Rule 26(a)(1) or responded to any of Plaintiff's Interrogatories or Requests for Production - - including those discovery requests covered by the portions of Magistrate Smith's Ruling of February 23, 2005, to which Defendant did not object.
1 2

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 14, 2003. Plaintiff served his discovery requests upon Defendant on September 29, 2003.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory Pro trial version http://www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:03-cv-00452-CFD

Document 42

Filed 11/03/2005

Page 2 of 3

At this point, Plaintiff is supplementing his Opposition to Defendant's Objection with additional legal authority from this Circuit that has come to the attention of the undersigned during the pendency of Defendant's Objection to Magistrate Smith's Ruling. See In re Priceline.com Inc. Securities Litig., No. 3:00CV01884, 2005 WL 1366450 (D. Conn. June 7, 2005)("The party resisting discovery bears the burden of demonstrating that its objections should be sustained and pat, generic, non-specific objections, intoning the same boilerplate language, are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."); Klein v. AIG Trading Group, Inc., 228 F.R.D. 418 (D. Conn. 2005)(granting plaintiff's motion to compel in employment case); Saylavee LLC v. Hockler, No. Civ. 3:04CV1344, 2005 WL 1398653, (D. Conn. June 14, 2005)(granting motion to compel and noting that "[t]o prevail on its objection . . . the objecting party must do more than simply intone the familiar litany that the questions are burdensome, oppressive or overly broad"); Petit-Phare v. City of New York, No. CV20044046, 2005 WL 2548257 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2005)(granting motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for failure to comply with discovery ruling); JSC Foreign Economic Assoc. Technostroyexport v. Int'l Development & Trade Servcs, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 5562, 2005 WL 1958361 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2005)(awarding sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 and court's inherent power). For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Objection to Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and For Expenses, Defendant's Objection should be denied.

2 PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory Pro trial version http://www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:03-cv-00452-CFD

Document 42

Filed 11/03/2005

Page 3 of 3

PLAINTIFF, DAVID RURAN

By:____________________________ William G. Madsen (ct09853) MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU LLC 44 Capitol Avenue, Suite 201 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 246-2466 (tel.) (860) 246-1794 (fax) Attorneys for the Plaintiff

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the 3rd day of November, 2005 to the following counsel of record: Mark A. Newcity, Esq. Fitzhugh, Parker & Alvaro LLP One Constitution Plaza, Suite 900 Hartford, CT 02110 _____________________ William G. Madsen

3 PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory Pro trial version http://www.pdffactory.com