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

. I—r~—;—~·—;—-—|
.._.I.-»~»+-—— .. : . . . . .. - c
_"@m? I ’ r ‘ ' . . 1;ea=¢. er¤_ . fe <
`_'__i. ,ecume¤t 12 fied *2/03* I
‘¥;’#~~ ’ · I- ·¤‘‘ ·*-‘“ - . `' -` ` -· I I I ‘ ¤
I * it fi `` ‘ .tf A fi w i i*€ if f w I a I ifi itifa P I
* ` ',4» lii]· I EI I ·' ' | QUNITED STATEE DIST cg CO § L., D I I
Q - I I.: R THE DISTRICT OF CO ITIC T _-
¤ . . ‘ J ,»=I I 5 · I i i ’ é
N ·`»` I IQ 0 - . 3* Liu I
Q; MARIA DEGENN M , ;. : CIVH. · CTIO . I I
i is - * 1 · ·ff I 3:03`C gm _ T “ CI COURT I
~ g I 6**/ °‘““ · 3 . . ai r sayin ti I
Eg, VS. : I · I
c: I . I
O EXPANETS, INC. and : I f
E EXPANETS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, :
CI} { a I
ZT Defendants. : Novembe 6; 200
`
O ' I
+J 1
E * I
3* PLAIN'I`IFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL TH : IIRO • UCTION I
E OF INFORMATION AND DOCU ENTS. I
4-*
g Pursuant to Rule 37, Plaintiff Maria DeGennaro, hereb moves 0 compel Defendants, I
§` Expanets, Inc. and Expanets of North America, LLC, to produc docum ts responsive to _
gi Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docum nts —~ S t No. 1 ("Discovery
I
S Request"). As explained in the accompanying Memorandum of aw, alt ough Defendants :2 I
JJ
F
S. served written Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Discove Reque t on or about October 6, * I
¤‘ I
2003, Defendants have failed and refused to produce any doctun == ts ori formation responsive to I
`
e
Pg the Discovery Request. In addition, as also explained below, De ndants I ave improperly
M · ..
`S attemptefdmto limit the scope of their responses to certain parts of e Disc I very Request in an
4: ° K;}. jjj I .
gi E; ieffort to .depri\re2laintiff of discovery to which she is entitled. Ul these easons, as well as the
gi T} I
2 M weasons fiilly explained in the accompanying Memorandum of La , the C urtjshould require I
tl) "‘* Q;-gj {ITL) `
iii ._,,
s it . F3 ‘’‘‘ " I
·—t En to `
CD
3 tu —~,
•~—I
A Q `*·~.
ei 8 cn Si I
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED I I I
LLLLLLLL
Lrrrrrrr