In Mirmina v. Genpact, LLC, Case No. 16-00614 (D. Conn., June 13, 2017), an employment law case involving, age, gender and race discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Plaintiff alleged that he was treated unfairly and discriminated against at work and terminated because of his age, race, and gender. Defendant claimed that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for taking adverse employment actions against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon Defendant; Defendant responded, but Plaintiff found the response inadequate and moved to compel.
Plaintiff’s requests for production included requests for “any and all documents referring to or regarding Plaintiff in any manner” and “all documents, including but not limited to emails, sent by or to” Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor, Sarika Saxena, and by or to Greg Meyers, his former supervisor, “which concern, refer to, or relate to Plaintiff.” Defendant objected to these two requests as over broad, and the court agreed, finding the requests improperly unlimited as to subject matter and time and in violation of FRCP 34 because they did not describe the items sought with reasonable particularity.
Referencing the court’s Initial Discovery Protocol, the court chided the parties, stating that they should have come to an agreement with respect to ESI “long ago.” The court encouraged the parties to resolve their remaining issues regarding ESI, and denied Plaintiff’s Motion in part and granted it in part, ordering Defendant to produce any items required by the Initial Discovery Protocols that it had not yet produced.