HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the motion of plaintiff Donald William Fairbanks Architect, P.C. ("plaintiff") to compel discovery responses from defendants Fairfield County Contractors, LLC, and Ewelina and Krzystof Wyszynski (collectively the "defendants"). [Doc. #65]. Plaintiff also seeks payment of its reasonable expenses in bringing this motion and other sanctions. Defendants oppose plaintiff's motion. [Doc. #68]. Plaintiff filed a reply on December 16, 2014. [Doc. #75]. For the reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and payment of expenses and sanctions. [Doc. #65].
Unless otherwise noted, the Court derives the following factual background from the Amended Complaint. [Doc. #9]. Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages from defendants' alleged infringement of plaintiff's copyright to architectural work and technical drawing(s) for the design of 4 Old Hill Farm Road in Westport, Connecticut (the "Old Hill Architectural Design"). Fairfield County Contractors, LLC is a Connecticut limited liability company, of which Mr. Wyszynski is a member. Mr. and Mrs. Wyszynski are husband and wife. At the commencement of this action, Mr. and Mrs. Wyszynski resided at the property located at 11 Silver Brook Road, Westport, Connecticut ("11 Silver Brook"), which was built by Fairfield County Contractors. The property has since been sold to a third party. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' design of 11 Silver Brook infringes the copyright to plaintiff's Old Hill Architectural Design.
At the commencement of this action, plaintiff moved for a prejudgment remedy on the basis of its copyright infringement claims. [Doc. #11]. This Court held hearings on August 11 and 13 and September 2 and 10, 2014. The testimony at these hearings largely focused on defendants' claimed deductible expenses.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the scope and limitations of permissible discovery. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is considered relevant for the purposes of discovery.
Plaintiff first argues that the Court should deem Fairfield County Contractor LLC's (the "LLC") objections to plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production waived because it served responses one day late. The Court DENIES this argument as moot in light of plaintiff's withdrawal of this argument.
Plaintiff served four interrogatories on the LLC. The LLC objected to the first three as follows:
[Doc. #64-5].
The
Defendant argues that these interrogatories "seek to expand the scope of this case," are not relevant, and do not comply with "the proportionality rule inherent in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)." [Doc. #68, 5]. The Court disagrees and overrules the LLC's objections on grounds of relevance and burden.
Plaintiff served six requests for production on the LLC. The LLC objected to the first four as follows:
[Doc. #65-6]. Plaintiff's first four requests seek various contracts and invoices that implicate the LLC's involvement in construction projects from October 1, 2012 to August 31, 2014, including those projects/contracts in which the LLC is involved either as a general or subcontractor. The Court overrules the LLC's objections for reasons already stated. Again, these requests are limited in temporal scope and are relevant to disputing the LLC's claimed deductible expenses. Notwithstanding the LLC's objections, defendants represent that they have "commissioned a forensic audit by an independent public accounting firm whose report is close to completion." In light of this representation, the Court will only require the LLC to produce documents responsive to requests 1 and 3. The Court will not require the LLC to produce documents responsive to requests 2 and 4, provided that the forensic accountant's report includes supporting documentation such as the invoices requested. If after a review of the accountant's report plaintiff still requires the documentation sought and the LLC declines to produce it, plaintiff may file another motion to compel as to requests 2 and 4. The LLC will produce documents responsive to requests 1 and 3 within thirty (30) days of this ruling.
Request No. 5 requests the LLC "[t]o produce and permit the plaintiff to inspect and copy every statement for every bank account that was open in the name of Fairfield County Contractors LLC during the period beginning October 1, 2012 and ending August 21, 2014. Such statements must include all cancelled checks shown as negotiated on those statements and included with, or as part of, those statements." [Doc. #65-6]. The LLC objected that,
[
Request No. 6 requests the LLC "[t]o produce and permit the plaintiff to inspect and copy every document filed by Fairfield County Contractors LLC with the United States Internal Revenue Service during 2013 and 2014." [Doc. #65-6]. The LLC objected that, "This request for defendant's tax records is well beyond the parameters of plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement and defendant's defense that it did not have access to or copy plaintiff's plans for 4 Old Hill Farms Road. It is therefore irrelevant. Moreover, defendant's tax records are confidential by law. Plaintiff is not entitled to access and investigate defendant's tax records." [
The Court will not compel the production of the LLC's tax returns on the current record. Generally, tax returns are discoverable if: "(1) it clearly appears they are relevant to the subject matter of the action or to the issues raised thereunder, and (2) there is a compelling need therefore because the information contained therein is not otherwise readily obtainable."
Plaintiff served five identical interrogatories on each of the individual defendants, all of which relate to the affirmative defense that, "Defendants had no knowledge or awareness of plaintiff's `Old Hill Project' and could not and did not have access to it." [Doc. #65-11].
Finally, plaintiff requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions upon defendants and defendants' counsel pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) and 26(g)(3), and District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule 37(c). The Court declines on the current record, and in light of the rulings above, to order the sanctions requested by plaintiff.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and payment of expenses and sanctions [Doc. #65] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. In the future the parties are encouraged to contact chambers for a telephone conference prior to resorting to motion practice.