CHRO: Crebase v. Proctor & Gamble, Order re: respondent's motion for sanctions

Crebase v. Proctor & Gamble, Order re: respondent's motion for sanctions
Crebase v. Proctor & Gamble, Order re: respondent's motion for sanctions

CHRO No. 0330171

Fed. No. 16aa300118

Commission on Human Rights and : Opportunities ex rel.
John Crebase

v.

Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

September 7, 2005

Order re: respondent's motion for sanctions

By motion filed August 31, 2005, the respondent moves for an order sanctioning the complainant for failing to comply with the undersigned's August 4, 2005 order to produce documents responsive to various production requests. The respondent's motion is granted.

By motion dated and filed August 3, 2005, the respondent moved for an order compelling the complainant to produce documents responsive to the respondent's production request dated April 20, 2005. By order dated and filed August 4, 2005, the undersigned granted in part and denied in part the respondent's motion. As to that part of the respondent's motion that was granted, the complainant was ordered to produce the documents on or before August 18, 2005. He was further ordered to file and serve (1) a notice that he had complied with the order; (2) an affidavit that he did not possess responsive documents for those production requests for which he did not possess responsive documents; and (3) an affidavit that the respondent already possessed responsive documents, and specifically identifying the documents, for those production requests for which the responsive documents were already in the respondent's possession. The order further specifically admonished the complainant that: "6. As set forth in section 46a-54-89a of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the complainant's failure to comply with this order for production may result in non-monetary sanctions. The sanctions 'may include: (1) An order that the matters that are the subject of the request for production or disclosure shall be established in accordance with the claim of the party requesting such order; and (2) An order prohibiting the party who has failed to comply from introducing designated matters into evidence.'"

According to the respondent's motion for sanctions, "[a]lthough Complainant produced limited additional documents, he has: 1) failed to file the affidavits ordered by this tribunal; 2) failed to file a notice of having filed a supplemental production as further required by this tribunal; and 3) failed to produce all responsive documents." The respondent "moves to sanction Complainant by precluding him from introducing into evidence any documents-or testimony supported by such documents-that Complainant has not produced" and that "the following matters be established in [the respondent's] favor: 1. Complainant is not an individual with a disability 2. Complainant did not suffer a compensable, medical injury as a result of [the respondent's] alleged conduct."

Order

As a result of the complainant's failure to comply with the order to produce documents and pursuant to section 46a-54-89a(b) of the regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the complainant is sanctioned as follows: (1) it is established that the respondent did not terminate the complainant's employment because of his mental disorder; (2) no evidence shall be introduced that the respondent terminated the complainant's employment because of his mental disorder and (3) no evidence shall be introduced that the complainant has a mental disorder.

__________________________
Hon. Jon P. FitzGerald
Presiding Human Rights Referee

c:
Francis A. Miniter, Esq.
Glenn W. Dowd, Esq.
Michael S. Agress, Esq.

 





Content Last Modified on 6/7/2006 11:13:01 AM