Leftridge v. Connecticut State Trooper et al
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.,
CIVIL NO. 3:07CV1166(VLB)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS
This case arises out of an alleged racial profiling incident
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
(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.
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.
251). None of the motions filed by the plaintiff contain memoranda
Nevertheless, and out of an abundance of caution, the
Court will fully consider each motion.
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.
respect to the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant and/or his
counsel have failed to disclose the existence of audio tapes of the
Nevertheless, Judge Bryant ordered the defendant to produce the
audio tapes and the transcript, and the defendant complied.
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
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
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.
The Court accepts the
To the extent that the plaintiff
alleges that the defendant’s deposition testimony with respect to
additional footage may exist, there is no competent evidence in the
record to support such an allegation.
Moreover, with respect to
prejudice to refiling, provided that the plaintiff include the
referred to by the Plaintiff regarding when [the defendant] stated
he activated the video recorder.”
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
improperly withheld discoverable materials, or have otherwise acted
in bad faith.
This alleged, but unsubstantiated, conduct on the
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
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.
of the process receipt and return, including the Deputy U.S.
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
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
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
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.
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
day of March, 2012.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
THOMAS P. SMITH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?