Free Order on Motion for Clarification - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

é
I Case 3:02-cv-01920-W5 Document 111 Filed 10/24@)3 Page 1 of 4
a- St?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT **1
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Fig? ~r~r
-................................................. - ....... X {gg? r:···:; rm .
; at 1. VW
DUNl ,,_ ; ti I
I 4 DONUTS, INC. ET AL. DATE: OCT. 24, 2003
I ``````````````````````````````"````````````'''' “ ``”''''“" X I
I I
RULING ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION FILED BY DEFENDANTS McMANAMA I
I
I
Although familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case is presumed, I
I a brief summary of the procedural history relevant to this motion follows. Plaintiffs I
I commenced this action on October 29, 2002 (Dkt. #1) and on February 13, 2003, this case I
I was referred to this Magistrate Judge for discovery purposes. (Dkt. #53). I
On July 2, 2003, plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel (Dkt. #74), which was granted I
in part and denied in part in a twenty-five page Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel I
Interrogatory Answers and Documents, filed on September 1 1 , 2003 (Dkt. #1 00)["September I
Ruling"]. Discovery related to defendants James McManama and George Germano was
addressed in Section lI.C of the September Ruling (pages 11-16), with compliance ordered
. by September 29, 2003} The September Ruling further held that all fact discovery shall be ,
completed on or before October 31, 2003 and all expert discovery shall be completed on or I
before December 31, 2003, without further extensions, "absent compelling and I
1The September Ruling also concerned production of documents related to 2 Donuts
(Section ll.A, at 8-10), production of documents related to 3 Kings (Section iI.B, at 10-11),
l document requests served on Glenn Stetzer, and interrogatories served on Glenn Stetzer, 4
Donuts, and Grando (Section II.D, at 16-23), and extension ofthe discovery deadlines (Section
II.E, at 23-24).
1
AO 12A
(Rev. BIB2)

I Case 3:02-cv-01920-|@t)< Document 111 Filed 10/24C20j)3 Page 2 of 4
unforeseeable circumstances." (Ld; at 23-24).
On September 23, 2003, defendants McManama and Germano filed the pending
Motion for Clarification (Dkt. #102).2 On October 6, 2003, plaintiffs filed their brief in
opposition, which indicated, inter alia, that the discovery dispute had been resolved with _
respect to defendant Germano. (Dkt. #107).3 I
The sole dispute then is the scope of discovery that the September Ruling ordered I
to be produced by defendant Mcll./lanama. In his motion, defendant McManama indicated _
that "it is [his] belief and understanding that this Court limited his responses to plaintiff[s’]
interrogatories andndocument requests to information relating only to 2 Donuts . . . and HMS
. . . from 1998 to the present." (Dkt. #102, at 1-2). In contrast, plaintiffs argue that I
I defendant McManama is required to more extensive discovery, Lg, interrogatories Nos. 1,
2, 4, 6 & 9-10 and Document Requests Nos. 1-4, 6-9, 12, 16-18 & 22, consistent with what I
was ordered from defendants Glenn Stetzer, 4 Donuts and Grando. (Dkt. #107, at 3-4).
As of the date of the brief, plaintiffs indicated that defendant McManama had not complied I
with any of the discovery requests (Q, at 2; see also Dkt. #108, at 2 & 4-5), and plaintiffs
seek additional time to complete discovery upon production of the documents. (Dkt. #107, I
at 4-5; see also Dkt. #108, at 5-6). I
2The following two exhibits were attached: copy of defendant McManama‘s Supplemental
Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of interrogatories, dated February 11, 2003 (Exh. A); and copy of ;
Germano’s Responses to PIaintiff’s First Set of interrogatories, also dated February 11, 2003 (Exh. I
B).
Two days later, defendants McManama and Germano also filed an Objection (Dkt. #104), ,
to the September Ruling, raising the same arguments as in the Motion for Clarification. l
°‘Attached as Exh. 1 was a copy ofa letter between counsel, dated October 3, 2003, which
indicated that the parties had resolved their discovery dispute with respect to defendant Germano.
The next day, plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendant McManama’s objection. (Dkt.
#108). I
2
6:l%vT28¢82)

l it"?
A Case 3:02-cv-01920-@5 Document 111 Filed 10/246003 Page 3 of 4
Defendant ll/lcManama is correct that the September Ruling addressed solely his
discovery obligations relating to 2 Donuts and HMS (September Ruling, Section lI.C, at 11-
15), and that the more extensive discovery ordered from defendants Glenn Stetzer, 4
Donuts and Grando (ig Section Il.D, at 16-23) is not applicable to him. The September '
Ruling tracked the requests made in plaintiffs’ brief in support of their motion, which, with l
l
respect to defendant McManama, addressed solely 2 Donuts (Dkt. #75, at 7—8), with the I
specific interrogatories and document requests addressed to defendants Glenn Stetzer, 4
Donuts, and Grando (ic; at 10-27).** Plaintiffs cannot obtain from defendant McManama’s
Motion for Clarification more than they sought in their original Motion to Compel. g
The Court is concerned, however, that at least as of October 6, 2003, defendant
McManama had failed to comply with the September Ruling, even as to the documents J
regarding 2 Donuts and HMS, which he acknowledged were due. If he has not already
done so, defendant McManama shall produce such documents on or before October 31, %
2003.5 l
Accordingly, defendant McManama’s Motion for Clarification (Dkt. #102) is ranted. y
· This is not a Recommended Ruling but a Ruling on discovery, the standard of review
of which is specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636; FED. R. Clv. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; and Rule 2 of the l
Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges. As such, it is an order of the Court unless I
"The brief expressly stated:"The following are the specific document requests and R
interrogatories submitted to Defendants Stetzer, 4 Donuts, Inc., and Grando, inc .... " (At 11). §
Elf any counsel believes that a further, and limited, extension of the discovery deadlines is
necessary, he or she should arrange for a telephonic status conference. In addition, counsel @
contact the Magistrate Judge's Chambers to arrange for a settlement conference, as previously _ _
ordered in the September Ruling (at 24).
The Magistrate Judge notes the dramatic improvement in the tone of counsel’s present
motions and briefs, in comparison to those previously filed (seg September Ruling at 3, n.9 & 23-
24), for which counsel are to be commended.
3
l
AO 72A l
(nav. waz) {

” - 4 ¤r 4
· - - 1920- R Document 111 Filed 10/24E 3 P89€
/ Case 3.02 cv 0
reversed or modified by the District Judge upon timely made objection.
gg 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within ten days
after service of same); FED, R. Civ. P. 8(a), 6(e) & 72; Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United
States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court forthe District of Connecticut; Small
v. Secretagg, H&HS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure to file timely objection to }
Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling may preclude further appeal to Second
Circuit).
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 24th day of October, 2003.
`
i
Margolis
Uni ed States Magistrate Judge
I
1
4 I
l
AO v2A [
(Flev. BI82)