Dianne Cicchetti V Fidelity Brokerage Services Llc

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the plaintiff must disclose individuals she communicated with regarding her claims and mental health professionals, and if her objections to these interrogatories are valid.
• Whether objections to interrogatory 8 regarding subsequent employment applications were timely and properly raised, and if the plaintiff's unsworn statements suffice.
• Whether non-wage income and fringe benefits are discoverable, and if the plaintiff's objections to interrogatory 7 were waived for failure to assert them timely.
• Whether the plaintiff needs to clarify if documents are withheld under objections for requests 8 and 13, and if privilege logs are required for such documents.
• Whether the plaintiff must provide her entire medical records or only identify healthcare providers, and if the defendant's request for full medical authorizations was justified under the relevance standard.
• Whether the plaintiff must disclose attorney fee information before a liability determination, and if courts in this district typically permit such discovery at this stage.
• Whether the plaintiff must disclose individuals interviewed for the case and their statements, and if work product objections to these requests are valid.
• Whether work product objections and the burden of indexing documents apply to requests for production 1 and 2, and if the plaintiff's failure to provide a privilege log waives these objections.
• Whether the plaintiff's subsequent employer's records are relevant to the defendant's claims of unsatisfactory work performance and if privacy objections under the Standing Protective Order apply.

Holdings

• The court granted Fidelity's motion for Interrogatory 12 (interviewed individuals) but denied Request for Production 6 (statements from interviews). Future statements may be protected work product.
• The court granted Fidelity's motion in part for Interrogatory 17 (healthcare providers and reasons for treatment) and denied it for the full medical record. Request for Production 3 was denied without prejudice, contingent on future non-speculative relevance.
• The court granted Fidelity's motion for Interrogatory 8 (subsequent employment applications), overruling Cicchetti's belated objections. She waived objections by failing to timely respond and brief them.
• The court denied Fidelity's motion for Interrogatories 5 and 13 regarding attorney fees, deeming discovery premature until liability is determined. Cicchetti's privacy arguments were unavailing as fee agreements are routinely discoverable post-liability.
• The court granted Fidelity's motion for Interrogatory 7 (non-wage income since 2023), deeming Cicchetti's objections waived for failing to assert them in initial responses or show good cause.
• The court ordered Cicchetti to revise responses to Requests for Production 8 and 13 to clarify withholding reasons and log privileged documents per the protective order.
• The court granted Fidelity's motion to compel compliance with Interrogatories 3 and 18, overruling Cicchetti's objections. Cicchetti must identify individuals she communicated with about her claims and disclose mental health professionals she treated with since 2020, including a signed response.
• The court granted Fidelity's motion for Requests for Production 1 and 2 in part, allowing production of documents relied upon while permitting withholding of privileged materials if properly logged. Cicchetti failed to demonstrate undue burden with required evidence.
• The court granted Fidelity's motion for Interrogatory 6 (post-termination employment details), overruling Cicchetti's relevance and privacy objections. She no longer works at the subsequent employer, and privacy concerns are addressed by the protective order.

Remedies

• The court overruled objections to Interrogatory 8, ordering Cicchetti to comply with requests about her subsequent employment applications, which were not timely challenged in initial responses.
• Cicchetti must revise her responses to Requests for Production 8 and 13 to specify whether documents are withheld based on objections and ensure any privileged or work product documents are logged per local rules.
• The court overruled Cicchetti's objections to the portion of Interrogatory 17 requiring identification of healthcare providers and reasons for their services but denied the request for full medical records unless Fidelity provides non-speculative relevance.
• The court overruled Cicchetti's objections to Interrogatory 7, requiring her to provide details about non-wage income and fringe benefits post-termination, which were not timely contested.
• The court overruled Cicchetti's work product objections to Interrogatory 12, requiring her to disclose names and dates of individuals interviewed or who provided statements related to her allegations.
• The court overruled objections to Interrogatory 6, mandating Cicchetti to authorize Fidelity to obtain records from her subsequent employer to assess claims about unsatisfactory work performance.
• The court overruled objections to Requests for Production 1 and 2, directing Cicchetti to produce relevant documents while maintaining the right to withhold documents under attorney-client privilege or work product with proper logging.
• The court overruled Cicchetti's objections to Interrogatories 3 and 18, requiring her to provide full compliance with these interrogatories, including identifying individuals she communicated with about her claims and mental health professionals.

Legal Principles

• The court emphasized that relevance during discovery is not limited by evidentiary admissibility, citing Rule 26(b)(1) and Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Information need only have a tendency to make a fact more or less probable to be discoverable, even if not admissible at trial. This principle aligns with cases like Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp. and Martino v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC.
• The court held that the party seeking discovery (Fidelity) bears the initial burden to show the requested information is relevant and not speculative. Once this prima facie showing is made, the responding party (Cicchetti) must justify curtailing discovery, per Rule 26(b)(5) and decisions in Williams v. City of Hartford and Wesleyan Univ., 2021 WL 4704852.

Precedent Name

• Lefcourt v. United States
• Wesleyan Univ.
• Gaynor v. City of Meriden
• Steinberg v. Constellation Agency, LLC
• Caudle v. Dist. of Col.
• In re PE Corp. Secs. Litig.
• Huseby, LLC v. Bailey
• Hughes v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
• Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc.
• Hannah v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover
• Freeman v. Giuliani
• Imperati v. Semple
• Manessis v. New York City Dep't of Transp.
• Williams v. City of Hartford

Cited Statute

• Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act
• Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

Judge Name

• Hon. Sarala V. Nagala
• Hon. Thomas O. Farrish

Passage Text

• The Court concludes that the best way to harmonize the relevant authorities, and to apply them to this case, is to grant Fidelity's motion in part and deny it in part as to Interrogatory 17 – that is, grant it to the extent that the interrogatory asked her to identify her health care providers and state the reasons for seeing them, but deny it to the extent that it sought an authorization for the complete medical record – and to deny the motion as to Request for Production 3.
• The Court will overrule Cicchetti's objections to Interrogatory 12 and order her to comply with it. The interrogatory seeks only the names of persons who gave statements and the dates on which they gave them.
• Cicchetti may, however, withhold any responsive document as to which she has a meritorious attorney-client privilege or work product objection, provided that she logs the document on a privilege log if required to do so by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e).