Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. . . Case 3: 3-cv-00945-CFD Document 84 Filed 04/27/2004 Page 1 of 3 f
UNITED STATES y
c U
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT E
ZUUU APR Z'! F9 3= H9 K
’..5.ii`;,_ {]iE&}}`_§`£lC`i" COURT I
1;ia§E%f·€3§E!l,CT.
CLARENCE . COLLINS, JR., ET AL., `
—P1aintiffs [
—v— CIVIL NO. 3:03 CV 945 (CFD)
l
i
1
OLIN CORP RATION, ET AL., E
—Defendants I
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL i
AND_MQTIQN_EQE_BRQTEQTIVE_QRDER l
Olin's motion for a protective order (Dkt. #68) is denied.
Plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel (Dkt. #67) is granted. O1in's
general 0 jections to p1aintiffs' discovery are not at all well-
taken, nor is the court persuaded by the arguments Olin offers in E
resistance to p1aintiffs’ discovery requests. The court finds that Q
the infor ation sought is relevant, and is not unreasonable or i
unduly burdensome. Accordingly, Olin is ordered to file complete Q
I
and non—evLsive responses to P1aintiffs’ Interrogatories 1, 4, 5, l
6, 7, 8, 1%, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, and 27; to comply
with Plaintiffs' Production Requests 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15,
16 and 17; and to answer Plaintiff’s Requests to Admit 15, 16, 17,
45, 46, 52 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 82,
5;;:777577*777“7"r—rr——;;#i?IQLILIZZTQjQQQIQQQ;;;;;;I;;;;;;;;;ii;iii;iiiiiiii;;;i;;;;i;


` ' i Case 3j03—cv-00945-CFD Document 84 Filed 04/27/2004 Page20f3
83, 84, 8 , 87, and 88 within 20 days hereof.
- Olin’s resistance to Plaintiff’s discovery is based largely on
its own n rrow conception of the law with respect to successor r
liability, and its equally optimistic assessment of the likely
success o its defenses. As plaintiff accurately points out, i
however, “[i]n ruling on questions of discovery, typically, courts ,
do not de ermine the legal sufficiency of claims and defenses.”
rr_Nat;liixnnnndfiwashingtcn, 103
F.R.D. 52, 59 (D.C.C. 1984). Olin cannot be permitted to escape
discovery by directing the court to “cut to the chase” as Olin I
perceives it. The court will address the legal sufficiency of
plaintiffs' claims in due course, pursuant to its own timetable, 1
not Olin’s.
Here, Olin boldly and impermissibly seeks to do what the
defendant RMS was forbidden to do in Bou;vis_;vL_j;¤§gMj@¥m;L {
' ., No. 3:01 CV 1933 2002 U.SD. Dist. Lexis 8521,
at *4 (D.Conn. May 3, 2002): 3
%or may RMA withhold discovery on the strength
of its own overly optimistic speculation that y
he might one day be successful in achieving `
ismissal of, or summary judgment on I
laintiff's complaint. Because an adjudication
pn the merits normally comes only after
iscover , “it is no objection to an
Y
interrogatory that it relates to a defense or
plaim which is insufficient in law." Anderson
117 F.supp. 932,
945 n.9 (E.D. Ark. 1953)
5gg_Al5g, , No. 98 civ. 2319, 2000 WL 777877, at *4
i

‘ ‘ ”“ Case 3: 3-cv-00945-CFD Document 84 Filed 04/27/2004 Page 3 of 3 r
(S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2000). In the instant case, of course, the `
court doe not suggest that 0lin's view of the law is likely to
prevail ev n at some later date after discovery has been completed.
For t e foregoing reasons, and on the basis of the authorities
set forth in plaintiffs’ able memorandum of lawl, the motion to
compel is ranted and the motion for a protective order is denied.
This is not a “recommended ruling.” It is a discovery ruling and I
order, wh+ch is reviewable pursuant to the “clearly erroneous"
standard of review provided for in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A).
27 '*
IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, this day
of April, 2004. _ U i
-m..,h.k.;;..q.—.;.“h,._. -
Thomas P. Smith <
United States Magistrate Judge
1 \
The laintiffs filed a consolidated motion to compel, E
memorandum and affidavit, which was marked by the clerk as Docket *
No. 67. In the future, plaintiffs will not follow this practice,
but will file a motion and a separate memorandum. Any affidavits
will be at ached to the memorandum.
I
.. 3 - I