T & T Electrical Contractors v. CMC (2012)

RULING ON MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE (NO. 139)

The defendant/counterclaim plaintiff (hereinafter the defendant) served written discovery on the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant (hereinafter the plaintiff) on April 4, 2012.   Plaintiff filed timely objections thereto on May 3, 2012.

On August 8, 2012, defendant filed a Motion for Order of Compliance (No. 137) which claimed that plaintiff had not answered any of the discovery responses.   Judge Wagner granted this motion on August 23, 2012, ordering discovery compliance within 14 days.   Plaintiff had already replied to defendant's discovery on August 20, 2012.   The reply to those interrogatories and requests for production to which plaintiff had already objected was “objection pending.”

The motion now before the court was filed on 8/28/12.   Defendant represents that the parties have had a good faith discussion of the objections and asks the court to order plaintiff to answer the objected-to discovery requests which the parties could not resolve on their own.   Plaintiff has objected to the present motion (No. 140) and defendant has filed a reply brief (No. 141).

Our Practice Book has a clearly defined procedure for getting discovery objections before a judge for resolution.   This procedure is set forth in Practice Book §§ 13–8 and 13–10.   The parties are expected to make a “bona fide attempt” to resolve the objections on their own.   If the parties cannot fully resolve their disagreements, the objections may be placed on the short calendar, if counsels file an affidavit which sets forth the particulars of their “meet and confer” efforts.

This court has seen numerous efforts by counsel to bypass §§ 13–8 and 13–10 by filing motions for compliance pursuant to § 13–14.   This is almost always improper, since § 13–14 was promulgated to deal with conduct which subverts or obstructs the discovery process.   It was not designed as an alternative method to bring before the court good-faith disputes over discovery objections.   This court believes that § 13–14 is appropriately used to address objectively improper conduct during the discovery process, which could include discovery objections which the court finds to have been filed in bad faith or for some clearly improper purpose.¹

While this court is not ruling on the present objections in response to this motion, it does not find that there is anything about them which would justify reviewing them as potentially improper within the meaning of § 13–14.   There is no reason why the prescribed process for resolving discovery objections should not have been followed in this case.

In its motion, defendant asks the court to compel plaintiff to respond to “Document Request” 27.   Although plaintiff's present response thereto is “objection pending,” it does not appear that it ever objected to this request, and plaintiff is ordered to respond thereto on or before December 7, 2012.

The motion is otherwise denied.   It is so ordered.

Miller, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In Brodie v. American General Life Ins. Co., No. X03–CV08–5018878 (Complex Litigation Docket at Hartford, June 8, 2010), this court discussed a situation where it found discovery objections to have been dilatory and filed in bad faith.   It is an example of the kind of conduct which would warrant relief under § 13–14 (although that situation did not involve a § 13–14 motion)..  FN1. In Brodie v. American General Life Ins. Co., No. X03–CV08–5018878 (Complex Litigation Docket at Hartford, June 8, 2010), this court discussed a situation where it found discovery objections to have been dilatory and filed in bad faith.   It is an example of the kind of conduct which would warrant relief under § 13–14 (although that situation did not involve a § 13–14 motion).

Miller, Grant H., J.