Opinion
UWYCV064011185S
07-14-2016
Angela Ransome-Harper v. Chris Harper
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL (#131) AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DATED 5/31/2016 (#134)
Robert Nastri, Jr., Judge.
The defendant's motion to compel (#131) came before the court on July 12, 2016. The parties agreed to have the court hear the defendant's objections to the plaintiffs' May 31, 2016 Requests for Production (#134) at the same time.
Motion to Compel (#131)
The defendant argued that the plaintiff responded to his April 21, 2016 production requests by providing him with a chaotic mass of papers. He asserted that the papers were in no particular order and that pages of multiple-page documents were interspersed throughout the production. He described individual pages of tax returns spread among unrelated documents throughout the mass of paper. The plaintiff did not challenge the defendant's description but represented he received the production responses from his client and provided them to the defendant in the same order and condition.
The court notes that in a highly emotion-charged case one party may choose to provide the other with production in a format designed to cause frustration and vexation. Although the court makes no such finding in this case, it is always counsel's duty to prevent that from happening.
Practice Book § 13-10(b), applicable to family matters by operation of Practice Book § 25-31, requires that " The response of the party shall be inserted directly on the original request . . ." Even when a party only provides notice of the requests for production pursuant to Practice Book § 13-9(b), the responding party is required by Practice Book § 13-10(b) to " set forth each request for production immediately followed by that party's response thereto."
The court interprets Practice Book § 13-10(b) to require the responding party to provide documents sorted and categorized to correspond with the production request to which they are responsive. Apart from our rules of practice, the " court has broad inherent authority to manage judicial proceedings in a variety of circumstances." State of Connecticut v. Abushaqra, 164 Conn.App. 256, 264-65, 137 A.3d 861 (2016). Inherent in the duty to produce is the duty to produce in a logical and coherent manner. The sorting and categorizing may be accomplished by either the responding party or that party's counsel but under no circumstances is it the responsibility of the inquiring party to divine which document is responsive to which request.
The defendant also complained that the plaintiff answered interrogatories to which no objection was filed but that the answers were not responsive. The plaintiff argued that the answers are responsive and sufficient.
The plaintiff is ordered to respond to the requests for production in a manner consistent with Practice Book § 13-10(b) by July 28, 2016. The production responses are to be sorted and categorized to correspond with the request to which they are responsive. The court cannot determine the adequacy of the plaintiff's interrogatory responses because it has access to neither the interrogatories nor the responses. The defendant is ordered to provide the court with a copy of each interrogatory and the arguably inadequate response no later than July 28, 2016. The court will issue further orders after reviewing the interrogatories and their responses.
Objections to the Plaintiffs' May 31, 2016 Requests for Production (#134)
The plaintiff filed requests for production on May 31, 2016 to which the defendant interposed objections, in part, on June 10, 2016.
Neither party filed an affidavit in compliance with Practice Book § 13-10(c) setting forth efforts to resolve the objections. In light of the parties' agreement to have the matter heard and in the interests of judicial economy, the court waives the requirement that the affidavit be filed before the matter can be heard on the short calendar.
Request number one seeks copies of the defendant's tax returns for the last two years. The defendant objected on the ground that the tax returns contain information about his spouse who is not a party. He argued that his financial affidavit shows he pays half the household and marital expenses so his wife's income is irrelevant. He offered to provide his federal form W-2s for each year.
The objection is overruled. The plaintiff has the right to challenge the assertions made in the defendant's financial affidavit.
Request number five seeks a benefit summary for any retirement plan that is the subject of a QDRO. The defendant objected on the basis that an order requiring the defendant to transfer a portion of his benefits has entered so a benefit summary is irrelevant.
The parties' January 4, 2007 separation agreement, incorporated into a judgment of the court on the same day, provides " The Husband shall transfer to the Wife 50% of his retirement benefits through a tax deferred domestic relations order (DRO). The date of valuation for the benefits shall be from the date of marriage through the date of the dissolution . . ." January 4, 2007 Separation Agreement at 8, ¶ 10.4. The parties agreed to engage Attorney Elizabeth McMahon to prepare the necessary documentation. Attorney McMahon is in the process of doing so based on information she obtained directly from the defendant's employer.
The objection is sustained. This ruling does not prevent the plaintiff from seeking from Attorney McMahon the information she obtained from the defendant's employer.
Request number nine seeks bills and invoices the defendant received from his counsel, as well as any emails he received. The defendant objects to providing emails on the ground they are protected by the attorney-client privilege. He does not object to providing the bills and invoices.
The objection is sustained to the extent the plaintiff is seeking emails between the defendant and his attorney. The defendant is to provide the requested bills and invoices.
Request number 10, to which an objection was interposed, was withdrawn on the record at the July 12, 2016 hearing.