Leftridge v. Connecticut State Trooper et al

Filing 295

ORDER denying 275 Motion to Compel Discovery; granting in part and denying in part 276 Motion for Order; granting in part and denying in part 277 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 280 Motion for Contempt; denying 280 Motion for Sanctions; de nying 282 Motion for Order; denying 284 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 284 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 284 Motion for Sanctions; denying 287 Motion to Stay; denying 293 Motion for Order. See ATTACHED ORDER. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on March 13, 2012. (Slitt, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

VERNON L. LEFTRIDGE, JR.,
- Plaintiff
v.

CIVIL NO. 3:07CV1166(VLB)

JEFREY BOURGEOIS,
- Defendant

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS
This case arises out of an alleged racial profiling incident
in

which

the

lone

remaining

defendant,

Jeffrey

Bourgeois,

a

Connecticut State Trooper, pulled the plaintiff’s vehicle over and
issued the plaintiff a written traffic violation warning. Pending
before the Court are eight motions filed by the plaintiff seeking
various forms of relief.

At the outset, the Court notes that the

plaintiff has been repeatedly warned by the presiding District
Judge, Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant, that he may not file motions that
are frivolous, without basis in law, or abusive of the judicial
process.

(Dkt. Nos. 251, 271).

arguably meet this description.

Most of the pending motions
Moreover, they are duplicative,

accusatory, and not based on a fair reading of the record.

The

plaintiff has also been warned that motions not accompanied by
memoranda of law showing that he has a reasonable belief that he is
entitled to the relief sought will be summarily denied.

(Dkt. No.

251). None of the motions filed by the plaintiff contain memoranda
of law.

Nevertheless, and out of an abundance of caution, the

Court will fully consider each motion.
Several

of

the

pending

motions

filed

by

the

plaintiff,

including Dkt. Nos. 275, 280, 284 and 293, relate to his assertion
that the defendant and/or his counsel have failed to comply with
their discovery obligations, and have otherwise acted in bad faith.
In particular, the plaintiff repeatedly asserts that the defendant
and/or his counsel have misrepresented to the Court the existence
of certain video and audio tapes.

The Court disagrees with the

plaintiff, and concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that
the defendant and/or his counsel have acted in bad faith.

With

respect to the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant and/or his
counsel have failed to disclose the existence of audio tapes of the
internal

affairs

hearing

has

investigation

previously

hearings,

been

produced

a

transcript

to

the

of

the

plaintiff.

Nevertheless, Judge Bryant ordered the defendant to produce the
audio tapes and the transcript, and the defendant complied.

(Dkt.

Nos. 272, 290). The Court has listened to the recordings, in their
entirety, and agrees with the defendant that there does not appear
to be any discrepancy between the recordings and the transcripts
that were previously provided to the plaintiff during the discovery
period.
In addition, with respect to the plaintiff’s claim that the
defendant and/or his counsel have failed to disclose the existence
of, and have not produced, additional videotape evidence recorded

2

from the defendant’s vehicle on the date of the alleged racial
profiling incident, the Court finds no merit in the plaintiff’s
allegations. The defendant has produced, both to the plaintiff and
the Court, a video from the date in question, and has represented
that no additional relevant video exists.
defendant’s representation.

The Court accepts the

To the extent that the plaintiff

alleges that the defendant’s deposition testimony with respect to
when

he

first

activated

the

video

recorder

indicates

that

additional footage may exist, there is no competent evidence in the
record to support such an allegation.
these

same

allegations,

plaintiff’s

motion

to

Judge

extend

Moreover, with respect to

Bryant

the

previously

discovery

denied

deadlines

the

without

prejudice to refiling, provided that the plaintiff include the
transcript

of

the

defendant’s

deposition

“with

the

comments

referred to by the Plaintiff regarding when [the defendant] stated
he activated the video recorder.”

(Dkt.

No. 274).

The plaintiff

has failed to provide a transcript of the defendant’s testimony,
and has otherwise failed to demonstrate to the Court that the
defendant and/or his counsel have improperly withheld, or failed to
disclose the existence of, any discovery materials.

In sum, the

plaintiff has not shown that the defendant and/or his attorney have
deliberately

misrepresented

the

existence

of

any

materials,

improperly withheld discoverable materials, or have otherwise acted
in bad faith.

This alleged, but unsubstantiated, conduct on the

3

part of the defendant and/or his counsel lies at the heart of
various duplicative motions filed by the plaintiff seeking some
form of sanctions against the defendant and/or his attorney.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. #275),
Motion for Contempt and Sanctions Against Defendant and Opposing
Counsel (Dkt. No. 280), “Motion for Immediate Default Judgment,
Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment” (Dkt. No.
284), and Immediate Motion for Order (Dkt. No. 293) are DENIED.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order and Motion to Quash and Dismiss
Defendant Bad Faith Motion for Security and Fees and Motion to
Correct Defendant Name” (Dkt. No. 277) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.

It is GRANTED only to the extent that the

plaintiff seeks a correction to the case caption on the docket
sheet with respect to the defendant’s last name.

The Clerk is

directed to replace the case caption to reflect the proper spelling
of the defendant’s last name, Bourgeois.
the motion is DENIED, as

In all other respects,

the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

that the defendant’s Motion for Security for Costs was filed in bad
faith.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (Dkt. No. 282) requesting the
Court to order the Deputy U.S. Marshal to provide an affidavit
regarding his service of process on the defendant, as well as a
duplicate copy of the certification of service, is DENIED.

A copy

of the process receipt and return, including the Deputy U.S.
4

Marshal’s remarks, are available to the plaintiff on the docket.
See Dkt. No. 29.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order that Deposition of Plaintiff Be
Scheduled on April 20, 2012" (Dkt. No. 276) is GRANTED in part, and
DENIED in part.

It is GRANTED only to the extent that the

plaintiff seeks an order setting the location of the plaintiff’s
deposition “in New Haven on the MetroNorth Railroad and bus line.”
The deposition shall be held within reasonable walking distance of
the rail and bus line in New Haven.

In all other respects, the

motion is DENIED. In particular, the Court will not order that the
deposition of the plaintiff must take place on April 20, 2012, a
date unilaterally selected by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has

asserted that, as a result of a Motion for Security for Costs filed
by the defendant, he lacks the resources to attend any deposition
before April 20, 2012. While the connection between the Motion for
Security

for

Costs

and

the

plaintiff’s

availability

for

a

deposition is tenuous, at best, Judge Bryant has since vacated her
order requiring the plaintiff to file a bond as security for costs.
(Dkt. Nos. 263, 286).

Thus, the plaintiff’s motion is unavailing.

To the extent that the plaintiff may be operating under the belief
that he may unilaterally select the date of his deposition, he is
mistaken.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1).

The parties are directed to

reach an agreement with respect to the date of the plaintiff’s
deposition, provided that the date complies with the schedule
5

outlined in Judge Bryant’s February 22, 2012 order (Dkt. No. 272).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay his discovery obligations
No. 287) is DENIED as moot.

(Dkt.

The Court, through this Order, has

disposed of all pending discovery motions.

The parties shall

comply with Judge Bryant’s February 22, 2012 order (Dkt. No. 272)
with respect to their remaining discovery obligations.
Finally, the Court advises the plaintiff that he would be well
served to focus his time and energy on complying with Judge
Bryant’s order requiring him to submit adequate responses to the
defendant’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production, rather
than continuing his practice of filing accusatory and duplicative
motions against the defendant and his counsel. Such motions are
abusive of the judicial process, and the Court reserves its right
to sanction the plaintiff if such conduct continues.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this

13th

day of March, 2012.

/s/ Thomas P. Smith
THOMAS P. SMITH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6