Burke v. Miron et al

Filing 77

ORDER ENTERING SANCTIONS pursuant to 67 Recommended Ruling, 75 Order on Recommended Ruling. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 4/7/09. (Turner, M.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MICHAEL A. BURKE, Plaintiff, v. JAMES MIRON, ET AL. Defendants. : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:07CV1181(RNC) SANCTIONS ORDER The court's Recommended Ruling of February 20, 2009 (doc. #67), adopted by Judge Chatigny on March 24, 2009 (doc. #75), included a ruling that the defendants were entitled to monetary sanctions due to plaintiff's refusal to submit to a deposition. Specifically, the court ruled that the plaintiff should pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs associated with the plaintiff's October 22, 2008 deposition and the defendants' motion for sanctions. The defendants were ordered to submit affidavits itemizing their fees and costs, which they did on March 12, 2009. (See doc. #73.) The court has reviewed the affidavit submitted by the defendants' counsel. The defendants seek a total of $2,055 for their work associated with the deposition and the motion for sanctions. Based on the court's familiarity with the rates charged in this district by counsel with similar experience as defense counsel, the rates charged by defendants' counsel are reasonable. The court further finds that the time spent by defense counsel in preparation for the deposition and in preparing the motion for sanctions was reasonable. The plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,055. Plaintiff's payment shall be made to the defendants' counsel on or before April 22, 2009. Plaintiff is reminded that failure to comply with a court order may subject him to further sanctions, including the sanction of dismissal. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 7th day of April, 2009. ____/s/________________________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?