Legal Opinion

Purugganan v. AFC Franchising, LLC

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided August 27, 2024No. 3:20-cv-00360Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DANILO PURUGGANAN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO. 3:20cv360(KAD) : AFC FRANCHISING, LLC, : : Defendant. : RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS Pending before the court is Defendant AFC Franchising, LLC’s (“AFC”) Motion to Reopen Discovery for a limited purpose (Dkt. #252) and Plaintiff’s Motion to compel supplemental discovery (Dkt. #266). For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion is GRANTED and plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Legal Standard Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that [p]arties may obtain discovery…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bagley v. Yale UniveristyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2016
  2. McKinney v. Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API