Cicchetti v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled on Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC’s motion to compel discovery in Dianne Cicchetti’s employment discrimination action. The court granted the motion in part, ordering responses to several interrogatories and production requests, while denying or limiting requests seeking complete medical records, attorney-fee information, and certain statements. Compliance was ordered by February 3, 2026.

Holdings

1. The motion to compel was granted as to Interrogatories 3 and 18. The plaintiff was required to provide complete, signed responses identifying persons with whom she communicated about the alleged factual occurrences and identifying mental-health professionals with whom she had treated, or stating in a properly signed response that none existed.
2. The motion was granted in part as to Interrogatory 17: the plaintiff had to identify her health-care providers and state the reasons and dates for obtaining services, but she did not have to authorize access to her complete medical records. The motion was denied as to Request for Production 3, which sought full medical authorizations, without prejudice to renewal if later discovery supplied non-speculative and proportional grounds.
3. The motion to compel was denied as to Interrogatories 5 and 13 because discovery of attorney-fee agreements and legal bills was premature before a finding of liability.
4. The motion to compel was granted as to Interrogatory 6, requiring the plaintiff to provide information about subsequent employers and authorizations for employment files.
5. The motion to compel was granted as to Interrogatory 7. The plaintiff's objections were overruled and she was ordered to provide a complete response.
6. The motion to compel was granted as to Interrogatory 8. The plaintiff's objections were waived because they were not timely asserted, were not adequately briefed, and were not supported by good cause.
7. The motion was granted as to Interrogatory 12 and denied as to Request for Production 6. The plaintiff had to identify persons interviewed or whose statements were taken and the dates of the statements, but she was not required to produce the statements where the defendant did not dispute that no responsive documents existed.
8. The motion was granted as to Requests for Production 1 and 2, subject to any meritorious attorney-client privilege or work-product claim. The plaintiff was required to provide a privilege log when required by the local rules.
9. The motion was granted as to Requests for Production 8 and 13. The plaintiff was ordered to revise her responses to state whether documents were being withheld under her objections and to provide a privilege log for responsive documents withheld on attorney-client or work-product grounds when required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Fidelity was entitled to compel responses to specified interrogatories and requests for production under the relevance, proportionality, privilege, work-product, and waiver provisions governing federal discovery.
2. Whether objections to interrogatories that were not timely asserted or were not briefed in opposition to the motion to compel were waived or abandoned.
3. Whether an employment plaintiff claiming emotional-distress damages must provide the identities of health-care providers but also authorize unrestricted production of complete medical records.
4. Whether discovery of attorney-fee agreements and legal bills was premature before a finding of liability.
5. Whether the plaintiff had to identify subsequent employers, post-termination income and benefits, subsequent employment applications, and persons interviewed concerning the allegations.
6. Whether the plaintiff had to clarify whether documents were being withheld under objections to requests for production and provide a privilege log when required.

Disposition

other