United States District Court, D. Vermont
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL OVERDUE DISCOVERY
RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 45)
Christina Reiss, Judge.
This
matter is before the court on a motion to compel overdue
discovery responses and a motion for sanctions filed on July
6, 2018 by Defendants Alderman Motor Car, LLC, Alderman's
Automobile Corporation, and Philip E. Alderman (collectively,
"Defendants"). (Doc. 45.) Defendants ask the court
to compel Plaintiff Donald Connolly to respond to
Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to
Produce (the "Discovery Requests"). Defendants
further seek an award of attorney's fees incurred in
filing their motion to compel. In the event Plaintiff fails
to comply with Defendants' Discovery Requests, Defendants
request that Plaintiff "be sanctioned ... by dismissal
of the action or, at minimum, entry of an Order that would
prohibit Plaintiff from using or entering into evidence any
documents responsive to the Discovery Requests[.]" (Doc.
45 at 2.)
On July
20, 2018, Plaintiff opposed the motions, asserting that he
provided timely responses in accordance with an agreed upon
extension. On July 27, 2018, Defendants filed their reply, at
which time the court took the pending motions under
advisement.
Plaintiff
is represented by John D. Stasny, Esq. Defendants are
represented by F. David Harlow, Esq. and Elizabeth K.
Rattigan, Esq.
I.
Factual Background and Procedural History.
On May
4, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants,
alleging claims of sexual harassment, a hostile work
environment, retaliation under Vermont's Fair Employment
Practices Act ("VFEPA"), and intentional infliction
of emotional distress. He seeks compensatory damages for the
stroke he suffered after leaving his employment with
Defendants, as well as damages for pain and suffering and
severe emotional distress.
Plaintiff
was employed at Defendants' automotive dealerships in
Vermont for approximately three years, during which time he
contends that he was "subjected ... to regular, graphic
descriptions of [coworker Deborah Worchester's] sexual
interests and preferred sexual acts; sexual questions about
[Plaintiff]; stories about other employees' sex acts;
aggressive sexual advances and demands; and other sexual
harassment." (Doc. 1 at 1, ¶ 1.) He further alleges
that he informed his supervisor at Alderman Toyota, Robert
Atkinson, both orally and in writing, about Ms.
Worchester's conduct in or about March of 2014 and
requested assistance. Plaintiff claims that Mr. Atkinson
warned him not to directly complain to Defendant Philip
Alderman or his employment may be terminated. On May 16,
2014, after receiving a promotion, Plaintiff was transferred
from Alderman Toyota to Alderman Kia. Despite the transfer,
Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Worchester "continued to
harass [him] with sexual remarks and messages[]" and
that Mr. Alderman failed to prevent it. Id. at 6,
¶ 37.
In
Counts I and II, Plaintiff alleges Defendants' conduct
violated the VFEPA. In Count III, Plaintiff contends that,
"[u]nder Vermont common law," Defendants owed him a
duty to use reasonable care to avoid harming him, as well as
a duty to anticipate and guard against '"human
traits' of their employees which, unregulated, are likely
to harm others." Id. at 9, ¶¶ 65-66.
He alleges that Defendants negligently failed to properly
train employees and managers to appropriately report and
respond to allegations of workplace sexual harassment. He
further alleges Defendants negligently retained employees
whose conduct they knew or should have known would put other
employees at risk, as well as negligently responded to his
allegations of sexual harassment.
On
March 1, 2018, the court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint. On March 19, 2018,
the court signed the parties' stipulated discovery
schedule. On April 12, 2018, Defendants served their
Discovery Requests which contained instructions directing
Plaintiff to "answer the following Interrogatories and
Requests to Produce, under oath, within 30 days
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and
34[]" and further stated that "[e]ach Request to
Produce shall be responded to with [the] production of
documents organized and labeled to correspond to the
categories in the request." (Doc. 47 at 1.)
The
court granted Plaintiffs unopposed motion to extend the time
for his responses to Defendants' Discovery Requests until
May 25, 2018. On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff served unsigned
responses to Defendants' Discovery Requests and
interposed five general objections. Each of these general
objections is waived. See Cole v. AADCO Med. Inc.,
No. 2:15-cv-200 (Doc. 86 at 8) ("Without supporting
affidavits or evidence explaining the burden, a general
objection constitutes a waiver"); Sullivan v.
StratMar Sys., Inc., 276 F.R.D. 17, 20 (D. Conn. 2011)
(granting motion to compel when responding party merely
"intone[d] [the] familiar litany that the
interrogatories are burdensome, oppressive or overly
broad") (alterations in original and internal quotation
marks omitted); Klein v. AIG Trading Grp., Inc., 228
F.R.D. 418, 424 (D. Conn. 2005) (ruling that the objecting
party must state "specifically how, despite the broad
and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery
rules, each [request] is not relevant or how each question is
overly broad, [unduly] burdensome or oppressive")
(alterations in original and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Plaintiff
responded to Interrogatories 1-9 with a reasonable degree of
completion. With regard to Interrogatories 10-15, however, he
provided the following responses:
10. Describe all mental or emotional injuries you have
suffered as a result of the incidents that are the subject of
the claims in this lawsuit, and identify each physician or
trained person who has rendered assistance or treatment; and,
described the assistance or treatment with dates.
Response: I have been diagnosed with PTSD,
anti-social personality disorder, anxiety, and depression. I
started seeing a counselor in December 2014, and I started
seeing a psychiatrist shortly thereafter. In the spring of
2017, 1 discontinued counseling and psychiatric therapy due
to insufficient funds. I remain on medication for anxiety and
depression. See also Plaintiffs health records.
11. Do you claim to have suffered any physical injury as a
result of the incidents which are the subject of this
lawsuit? If so, please:
a. Describe the injury and the date of the injury;
b. Identify each physician or trained person who has rendered
assistance or treatment; and
c. Describe the assistance or treatment with dates.
Response: I suffered a stroke in September,
2014.
12. For any mental, emotional or physical injuries described
in response to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11 above, please:
a. State each diagnosis made by a physician or a trained
person of any physical, mental, emotional or nervous injury
caused by the incidents which form the basis of this action;
b. Identify the person making each diagnosis;
c. Identify the documents (if any) in which each diagnosis is
...