Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

-M--__·_-_-_M Filed 12/1 (875003 Page 1 of 2 I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT gy- E,
__--_-H--__'I--nn-_—_-__nun--nun_--unnn-nun-Xy ij L} FH I
DUNKlN' DONUTS INC. ET AL. 3:02 CV 1920 .. . ._. I WI?
v, M N 5* U I.II E Im
4 DONUTS, INC. ET AL. DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2003 I
............ I- —----— - ---—- — ----—----—---——-- --— ---——------ X
RULING FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW *
Familiarity is presumed with this Magistrate Judges Ruling on Defendants’ Motion I
to Compdil Production of Documents and Interrogatory Answers, filed December 9, 2003
(Dkt. #141|)["December 9*** Ruling"], as well as the nine prior discovery rulings issued in this g
case. (DkIcs. ##54, 58, 79, 100, 101, 103, 111, 112, 136). With respect to lnterrogatory No. I
3, the DecIsmber 9*“ Ruling ordered plaintiffs to "fonivard to the Magistrate Judge’s Chambers i
for her @Lrg;a review copies of plaintiffs’ written investigations of the ‘several franchisees’
described In the Reno Affidavit, which will be reviewed primarily for the purpose of shedding
light uponl how plaintiffs have interpreted Sections 8.A.3 or 8.0.3 of the Franchise
Agreements with respect to the provision of catering services." (At 3-5). ln accordance with
this ruling, popies of such investigations were delivered on December 16, 2003 and have
been filed iIinder seal. (Dkt. #150).
Aftdr a careful review of the copies of these investigations, there is nothing in these
reports whiph sheds any light on how plaintiffs have interpreted Sections 8.A.3. or 8.0.3 of
the Franchise Agreements with respect to the provision of catering services, and thus
plaintiffs neIed not disclosure these investigations to defendants.
ge I28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within ten days
after service of same); FED. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United
I I

~ · (112/17 O3 Page2<>f2 I
Case 3:02-cv-01920@I3K Document 153 File I
States I\1Iagistrate Judges, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; Small
v. Secrgltary, H&HS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(faiIure to file timely objection to
Magistrtlte Judge’s recommended ruling may preclude further appeal to Second I
Circuit)1
1 I
D1ated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 18th day of December, 2003. N
oa Ivlizllguun
it d ates Magistrate Judge
1 I
1 1
I 1
I 1
1

I
1
1
I 1
1 1
1
1
1 I
I 1
1
I 1

1
1
2
1
A0 72A I
(Row. 8/82) I
I I
I
1
I
I