Leftridge v. Connecticut State Trooper et al
Filing
378
ORDER denying 361 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 365 Motion for Order; granting in part and denying in part 367 Motion to Compel; denying 367 Motion to Dismiss; denying 375 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 376 Motion for Order; granting in part and denying in part 376 Motion to Take Deposition. See attached Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on June 5, 2012. (Slitt, M.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
VERNON L. LEFTRIDGE, JR.,
- Plaintiff
v.
CIVIL NO. 3:07CV1166(VLB)
JEFFREY BOURGEOIS,
- Defendant
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
The defendant has filed a Renewed Motion to Compel and Request
for Dismissal (Dkt. #367) in this case. The motion to compel is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
DENIED.
The request for dismissal is
At the outset, the Court notes that the plaintiff's
supplemental response to the defendant's discovery requests was
drafted in the proper form, and was timely mailed, as evidenced by
the certified mail receipt.
It is apparent to the Court that the
plaintiff has now made a good faith effort to respond to the
defendant's discovery requests and to comply with this Court's
prior orders.
Accordingly, to the extent the defendant seeks
sanctions up to, and including, dismissal, or an order to show
cause why the case should not be dismissed, the motion is DENIED.
Rather than produce documents in response to the defendant's
Requests
responsive
for
Production,
documents
are
the
plaintiff
presently
has
located
at
indicated
the
that
office
of
Attorney John R. Williams in New Haven. Attorney Williams does not
represent the plaintiff in the instant case, but represents him in
one or
more
other pending cases.
The
plaintiff's
responses
indicate that he has consulted with Attorney Williams, and Attorney
Williams "has agreed that these materials will be made available to
defense counsel for inspection and copying at his office...upon
reasonable advance notification. They are voluminous and fill more
than a file drawer."
Under the circumstances, where the plaintiff
alleges that he no longer possesses certain documents due to an
unrelated theft of his belongings, Attorney Williams' offer is
acceptable to the Court.
Williams'
office
to
The defendant shall contact Attorney
schedule
a
mutually
convenient
inspection and copying of the responsive documents.
time
for
The Court is
under the impression that the plaintiff has now complied with the
request for medical records authorization forms as contained in
Request for Documents #8.
If this is not the case, the plaintiff
is ordered to immediately comply with such request.
However,
plaintiff
the
has
Court
still
interrogatories.
agrees
failed
with
to
the
defendant
properly
answer
that
the
certain
The defendant is not entirely without fault with
respect to this deficiency, as its March 28, 2012 Notice of Receipt
of Untimely and Incomplete Discovery Responses from Plaintiff (Dkt.
#319)
only
identified
interrogatories.
a
subset
of
the
then-deficient
For this reason, the Court's April 3, 2012 (Dkt.
#329) and May 10, 2012 (Dkt. #360) orders with respect to the
plaintiff's
supplemental
response
2
only
addressed
the
interrogatories listed in the March 28, 2012 Notice. The plaintiff
properly
responded
to
all
interrogatories
referenced
in
the
defendant's March 28, 2012 Notice and incorporated into the Court's
orders.
each
Nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to responses to
interrogatory,
regardless
of
whether
such
response
was
properly identified as deficient in the March 28, 2012 Notice. The
plaintiff is directed to file a second supplemental response by
June 18, 2012.
The response shall include proper answers to
Interrogatories #3(b), #3(c), #6(d), #8(d), #9(b), 18, 21, 22, 23,
24, and 32.
To the extent that any of these interrogatories seek
documents, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to state, if true,
that the documents are available for inspection and copying at the
offices of Attorney Williams.
The response shall be sent via
certified mail, and the plaintiff shall file a notice on the record
with a copy of the stamped receipt showing the date it was mailed.
The plaintiff's initial response to Interrogatories ##19 and 20,
and his supplemental responses to Interrogatories ##26, 27 and 28,
are sufficient and need not be supplemented. Thus, for the reasons
stated above, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
The request for sanctions and/or dismissal is DENIED.
With
respect
to
the
plaintiff's
"Motion
for
Order
That
Defendant Sign His Deposition Transcript and Return to Plaintiff
Immediately," (Dkt. #365), the motion is DENIED.
Contrary to the
assertions of the plaintiff, there is no provision in the Federal
3
Rules of Civil Procedure that would require a deponent to sign a
deposition transcript.
Rule 30 merely affords the deponent an
opportunity to review the transcript and, "if there are changes in
form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the
reasons for making them." Nothing in the Federal Rules requires the
defendant to sign his transcript.
The plaintiff's Motion for Order (Dkt. #376) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
To the extent the motion seeks an order
requiring the defendant to sign his deposition transcript, it is
denied for the reasons stated above.
order
regarding
the
date
and
To the extent it seeks an
location
of
the
plaintiff's
deposition, it is denied. The defendant is free to re-schedule the
deposition at the previously scheduled location in New Haven.
The
defendant is under no obligation to conduct the deposition at
Attorney Williams' office, as requested by the plaintiff. However,
with respect
to
the
date
of
the
rescheduled
deposition,
the
defendant shall either notice the deposition for July 13, 2012, if
counsel is available on that date, or communicate via telephone
with the plaintiff in order to select a mutually alternative date
that is no later than July 31, 2012.
The deposition notice shall
be filed on the docket.
To the extent that the Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's
Renewed Motion to Compel (Dkt. #375) includes a renewed motion for
appointment of counsel and a request for sanctions and/or a finding
4
that opposing counsel is in contempt of court, such motions are
DENIED.
Judge Bryant has previously ruled numerous times that
appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case.
##13, 52, 96, 112, 164.
See Dkt.
Furthermore, the Second Circuit addressed
this issue on appeal, and found no abuse of discretion of this
Court's denial of the plaintiff's requests for the appointment of
counsel.
See Dkt. #129 at 13-14. Therefore, the renewed motion to
appoint counsel is denied.
With respect to request for sanctions
and/or a contempt finding, there has been absolutely no showing
that defendant's motion to compel was brought in bad faith.
Thus,
the request is denied.
Finally, the plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration
(Dkt. #361) of the Court's May 4, 2012 Order (Dkt. #354) denying
his motion for sanctions.
granting
a
motion
In the Second Circuit, the standard for
for
reconsideration
"is
strict,
and
reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party
can
point
to
controlling
decisions
or
data
that
the
court
overlooked - matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v.
CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
court did not overlook any cases or data.
Here, the
While the evidence
provided by the plaintiff shows that the defendant's recollection
in 2012 of the exact circumstances surrounding his being served
with the Complaint in 2008 may, arguably, differ from a notation on
5
the U.S. Marshals Service receipt, this falls far short of perjury.
If the plaintiff believes that the evidence is relevant to the
defendant's credibility, he is free to raise it during the summary
judgment or trial phase of this litigation.
the
plaintiff's
assertions,
he
has
Moreover, contrary to
repeatedly
made
baseless,
accusatory, and unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks against the
defendant and his counsel.
For this reason, the Court noted in
Dkt. #354 that it has repeatedly ruled against the plaintiff on
similar allegations of misconduct against the defendant.
The
plaintiff has previously been admonished by the Court that motions
for reconsideration "are discouraged and could be deemed an abuse
of the judicial process and result in the assessment of costs."
Dkt.
#217.
(Bryant,
J.).
Accordingly,
the
Motion
for
Reconsideration (Dkt. #361) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this
5th
day of June, 2012.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
THOMAS P. SMITH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?