Legal Opinion

Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided February 9, 2009No. Civil 3:07CV01377 (CFD)PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL [Dkt. # 24]

THOMAS P. SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge.

This is an age and disability discrimination action arising out of plaintiffs termination of employment with defendant as a consultant in its Health and Welfare Consulting Unit. Prior to working in this unit, plaintiff had been employed by defendant for seven years. (Complaint). Pending before the court is plaintiffs motion to compel responses to interrogatories and production requests. (Dkt.# 24). As set forth below, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Standard of Review

Parties…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Harold D. Blankenship, an Individual v. The Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, William H. Myers, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  3. Culkin v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2004

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. A. Mark Getachew and Denora Getachew v. L&S Investments, LLC, Lawrence Rutkowski, and Eric D. GraysonDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2026
  2. Alberty v. HunterDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2022
  3. Antoinette C. Taylor v. Phyllis A. FrazierDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2025
  4. Antoinette C. Taylor v. Phyllis A. FrazierDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2026
  5. Arvinas Operations, Inc. v. QianDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2024

61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API