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

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD

Document 105

Filed 09/30/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CLARENCE R. COLLINS, JR., et al., - Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., - Defendants NO. 3:03CV945(CFD)(TPS)

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL The defendants' motion (Dkt. # 90) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. To the extent that the

defendants move to compel the depositions of all thirty-six class representatives, their motion is GRANTED. undoubtedly relevant and the court These depositions are that they are not

finds

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative nor does their burden or expense outweigh their likely benefit. 26(b)(1) & (2). See Fed. R. Civ. P.

That the plaintiff feels that such discovery is (See Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Mot.,

"not warranted" is of no import. 6/11/04, at 3).

At this time, the court declines to grant the defendants' motion to exceed the one-day/seven-hour limitation on depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). PREJUDICE. Accordingly, it is DENIED WITHOUT

Indeed, the bifurcation of discovery may necessitate The court will

extensions of the time limitations of Rule 30.

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD

Document 105

Filed 09/30/2004

Page 2 of 2

entertain such motions in accordance with Rule 30(d)(2) on an individual basis should the need for additional testimony arise. At the conclusion of all proceedings, on application, the court will consider the amount of attorney's fees, if any, that should be awarded in connection with this motion. 37(a). Fed. R. Civ. P.

IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 17th day of August, 2004.

/s/ Thomas P. Smith Thomas P. Smith United States Magistrate Judge

2