Amara v. Cigna Corp, et alMOTION for SanctionsD. Conn.February 2, 2006UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, : individually and on behalf of : all others similarly situated, : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : Civil. No. 3:01-CV-2361 (MRK) : CIGNA Corp. and : CIGNA Pension Plan, : : Defendants. : February 2, 2006 PLAINTIFF CLASS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiffs hereby move to compel responses by Defendants to Plaintiff’s Second and Third Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories and for sanctions. In support hereof, Plaintiffs respectfully represent as follows: 1. On July 8, 2005, Defendants submitted supplemental responses to the Second Requests and their responses to the Third Request and First Set of Interrogatories. 2. Defendants’ responses were limited to repeated generic objections and evasive answers. Defendants stated that additional documents would be produced in response only to a limited number of requests at a later date. 3. Defendants’ responses repeat the same objections Judge Squatrito overruled three years ago when he granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. See 2/19/03 Mem. Opinion and Order (dkt. # 67). 4. Plaintiffs have continued to seek without success the production of documents Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK Document 161 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 1 of 3 covered by the requests. While some documents were produced on September 15, 2005, in response to this Court’s Scheduling Order, the production did not respond to all of Plaintiffs’ requests and was even less than what Defendants initially stated would be produced. 5. Defendants objected to numerous requests on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work-product grounds without producing a privilege log. Defendants later indicated that no privilege log would be forthcoming. Defendants finally produced a privilege log listing one document which Plaintiffs already possess (and which is clearly not privileged). 6. Pursuant to Local Rule 37(a)(2), Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred in good faith with Defendants’ counsel in an effort to resolve the issues raised by this motion but were unable to reach an agreement. 7. Because Defendants have to date made little effort to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests despite Judge Squatrito’s order and this Court’s prior instructions, Plaintiffs request that CIGNA be sanctioned under Fed. R.Civ. P. 37 for the “practice” of refusing to comply with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and Court Orders until Plaintiffs “make a motion.” Plaintiffs also request that CIGNA’s attorneys be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for unreasonably multiplying the proceedings in this case by causing the Plaintiffs to have to file this third motion to compel to obtain answers and documents which are clearly required under the Federal Rules. 8. In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs rely on the accompanying Memorandum of Law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery and for Sanctions be granted. Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK Document 161 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 2 of 3 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Thomas G. Moukawsher Thomas G. Moukawsher ct08940 Ian O. Smith ct24135 Moukawsher & Walsh, LLC 21 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 278-7000 (860) 446-8161 (fax) tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com Stephen R. Bruce ct23534 (pro hac vice) Suite 210 805 15 St., NWth Washington, DC 20005 (202) 371-8013 (202) 371-0121 (fax) stephen.bruce@prodigy.net Attorneys for the Plaintiff Class Case 3:01-cv-02361-MRK Document 161 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 3 of 3
