RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL

DONNA F. MARTINEZ, Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiffs, the City of Hartford and the Hartford Board of Education, bring this action pursuant to the Connecticut Products Liability Act against the defendants, Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia LLC, alleging that the defendants are liable for PCB contamination at the Clark Elementary School in Hartford, Connecticut. Pending before the court is defendants' motion to compel. (Doc. #187.) The motion encompasses two separate issues: (1) a request to compel plaintiff's expert, Ross Hartman ("Hartman"), to produce certain documents and (2) a challenge to the plaintiffs' privilege log. The court heard oral argument on October 25, 2017.

A. Production Requests

The defendants seek to compel Hartman to comply with production requests 26, 27, and 31 and to submit to another deposition.

1. Production Request 26 seeks presentations (and related notes) Hartman gave on PCBs. The plaintiffs' objections1 as to overbreadth and relevance are overruled. The plaintiffs also object on the grounds that the request "vastly exceeds the bounds of proper expert witness discovery" and cite as support Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C)2. (Doc. #194 at 12.) That rule, however, provides "work-product protection against discovery regarding draft expert disclosures or reports and — with three specific exceptions — communications between expert witnesses and counsel." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee's note to 2010 amendment. The plaintiffs' reliance on this rule to preclude the defendants' request for Hartman's presentations is misplaced. The plaintiffs' objection is overruled.

2. Production Request 27 concerns pilot projects in which Hartman participated and, as narrowed by the defendants during oral argument, seeks summary reports (and attachments) issued to clients. The plaintiffs' objections, the same asserted in response to Request 26, are overruled.

3. Production Request 31 seeks communications and documents of Hartman or SES or any other company with which he was associated related to environmental consulting services provided to Moosup Elementary. The plaintiffs' objections, the same asserted in response to Request 26, are overruled.

The defendants' motion to compel Hartman to comply with production requests 26, 27 and 31 and to submit to another deposition is granted.

B. Privilege Log

The second aspect of defendants' motion concerns the plaintiffs' privilege log. (Doc. #187, Ex. M.) Initially the defendants requested that the court conduct an in camera review of the entire log because the entries did not appear to reflect proper invocation of either work production protection or attorney-client privilege. However, during oral argument, defendants narrowed their request for an in camera review of the following six documents:

The defendants' narrowed request is granted. Plaintiffs shall deliver copies of these documents to chambers.

C. Conclusion

This is the fifth time that the parties have needed the court's involvement to resolve their discovery dispute. See doc. ##167, 168, 181, and 185. The docket reflects that there are additional discovery motions pending.

Counsel are reminded of their obligations under both the federal and local rules of procedure to meet and confer in an effort to resolve any differences and present to the court only those issues of discovery that are necessary for the full weight of judicial authority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 requires that a motion to compel "include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Local Rule 37 requires counsel to confer "in person or by telephone." The importance of the meet and confer requirement cannot be overstated: it "ensures that when limited court resources are taxed to address discovery disputes, they are in fact ripe for determination, the issues have been framed for the ease of the court, and the parties are firmly convinced of their inability to arrive at a mutually acceptable compromise among themselves." Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55, 59 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).

SO ORDERED.