Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-O1 OFSBWWE Document 42 Filed 12€%2003 Page 1 of 3 _
a c
{ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT in D
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT . " I ,.._ I !_ A J
JULIE DILLON RIPLEY MILLER, (
Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant, )
— against — l
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION, i
December 13, 2003 I
Defendant and Counterclaimant.
1
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE RESPONSES
TO ITS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
i AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 37 of the J
Local Civil Rules of District of Connecticut, Defendant and Counterclaimant Merrill Lynch
i Credit Corporation ("MLCC") submits this motion to compel Plaintiff and Counterclaim e
Defendant Julie Dillon Ripley Miller to provide responses to MLCC’s First Requests for
Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories.
On July 23, 2003, MLCC served its First Requests for Production of Documents. f
On August I2, 2003, MLCC served its First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff served her E
Responses to the First Request for Production of Documents on August 25, 2003, and her `
Responses to the First Set of Interrogatories on September 12, 2003. 1
Plaintiffs responses are deficient in many respects. In particular, Plaintiff objects
to and improperly refuses to produce various categories of discoverable documents. Plaintiff l
likewise failed to provide complete responses to certain of the interrogatories. }
E
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED I


l __ ?¥_ g W E E R Hu _V%— iqghw pqgg

_ _, __? _ ___ R gg Faq ng 6-% —5._E—gi-_am-

r· . ip Case 3:03-cv-010€»6)WWE Document 42 Filed 12652003 Page 2 of 3 .
i v p- _
On September 19, 2003, Thomas P. Friedman, on behalf of MLCC, participated }
in an extended teleconference with Plaintiff s counsel, Patrick W. Begos, detailing the
inadequacies in Plaintiff’ s discovery responses, and discussing mutually acceptable resolutions
U to the outstanding discovery issues. Plaintiff did not supplement her answers to interrogatories i
or produce the requested documents.
[ On October 6, 2003, Attorney Friedman sent a follow—up letter to Attorney Begos,
requesting that Plaintiff supplement her discovery responses andfor follow through with the g
} proposed resolutions discussed during the teleconference of September 19. Despite diligent {
effort, the parties have not achieved a satisfactory resolution. Consequently, MLCC now
submits the instant motion to compel. The Affidavit of Thomas P. Friedman, attesting to the j
I parties’ efforts to narrow the areas in dispute, is attached as Exhibit A to the accompanying
memorandum of law.
Dated: December 13, 2003
Stamford, Connecticut PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
By: `
Douglas C. Conroy, ctIl555 .
Thomas P. Friedman, ct24947 I
1055 Washington Boulevard `
Stamford, CT 06901-2217 p
Telephone: (203) 961-7400
Facsimile: (203) 359—3031
Email: [email protected] l
[email protected] [
Counsel for Defendant and Counterclaimant 1
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION I
_`W"`""“"“""""”

I ¤ .4/ ` Case 3:03-cv-010 WE Document 42 Filed 12/ 2003 Page 3 of 3 .
I I ‘ U
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this 13th day of December, 2003, a copy of the foregoing I
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO ITS I
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FIRST SET OF I
INTERROGATORIES was delivered via U.P.S. ovemight mail to:
Patrick W. Begos, Esq. . I
BEGOS & HORGAN, LLP I
327 Riverside Avenue I
Westport, CT 06880 {
A Thomas P. Friedman
STM.’26US44.l
1141300021 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I