Easterling v. State of CT Dept of Corr
ORDER finding as moot 191 Motion to Compel by agreement of the parties. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 4/11/12. (Esposito, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHERIE EASTERLING, ET AL
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
CIV. NO. 3:08CV826 (JCH)
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
By letter dated March 29, 2012, plaintiffs contacted the
court for assistance in resolving a discovery dispute.
Specifically, plaintiffs seek disclosure of documents concerning
additional hiring criteria the Department will rely upon, as an
affirmative defense, to attempt to disqualify class members from
receiving back pay relief and to reduce the hiring shortfall.
Defendant responded that all relevant documents had been
disclosed except the questions posed during oral interviews which
defendant was unwilling to provide at this time because of the
current selection process, in which some of the plaintiffs are
Judge Hall referred the matter to the
undersigned. A conference was held on April 9, 2012.
After discussion with the Magistrate Judge, counsel have
agreed to resolve their discovery dispute as follows: Defendant’s
counsel will consult with the DOC to determine if there are any
additional documents or electronic information responsive to
plaintiffs’ request for information relating to the 2004/2006
officer selection process factors. The specific questions used in
the interview portions of the 2004 and 2006 selection process
will not be disclosed until the oral interviews for the current
selection process are completed; then they will be disclosed for
attorneys’ eyes only.
A DOC witness will be produced pursuant to
Rule 30(b)(6) to answer questions about the 2004/2006 selection
process other than the physical fitness test.
The parties are
not waiving their respective positions concerning the legal
import or relevance of evidence about the application of factors
other than the physical fitness test to the selection process or
the process of reducing the shortfall for purposes of calculating
Construing the letter as a Motion to Compel, it is DENIED as
MOOT in light of the agreement of the parties.
This is not a recommended ruling.
This is a discovery
ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly
erroneous" statutory standard of review.
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of
the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges.
As such, it
is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the
district judge upon motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 11th day of April 2012.
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
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?