Case Law

Court Rules that Asking for Everything is Overly Broad and Unacceptable


Mirmina v. Genpact LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90422 (D. Conn. June 13, 2017) In this motion to compel, the plaintiff sought additional responses to interrogatories and requests for production from the defendant. The defendant sought to deny the plaintiff’s discovery requests pursuant to FRCP 34, contending that the request for any document that generically concerns or refers to the plaintiff was unduly burdensome and would not be proportional to the benefit. The plaintiff responded, stating the request was necessary for his claim, and his counsel would be willing to work with the defendant to identify mutually agreeable search terms, custodians, and time frames to narrow the scope. The court held that the plaintiff’s discovery requests were overly broad in violation of Rule 34 and would sweep in documents that bear no relevance to the claims or defenses. The plaintiff’s motion to compel was denied; however, the defendant was ordered to provide materials required under Connecticut District Court discovery protocols to the extent it had not already complied.

Keywords: ESI, FRCP 34, Scope of Discovery, Requests for Production