Stanley v. Meier et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying without prejudice 52 Motion to Compel; overruling (Dkt. #44) the plaintiff's objection to deposition. See attached Ruling and Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on April 14, 2011. (Keefe, B.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

STEVEN K. STANLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:09-cv-1643(CFD)(TPS)

SGT. MEIER, et al.,
Defendants.

RULING AND ORDER

The plaintiff asks the court to intervene in this matter and
compel the defendants to provide all requested discovery materials.
In response, the defendants state that the plaintiff has not
complied with the requirements of Rule 37, D. Conn. L. Civ. R.
Rule 37, D. Conn. L. Civ. R., requires that, before filing a
motion to compel, the moving party must confer with opposing
counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.

The purpose

of this rule is to encourage the parties to resolve discovery
disputes without court intervention.

See Hanton v. Price, No.

3:04cv473(CFD), 2006 WL 581204, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 8, 2006).

If

discussions are not successful, the party moving to compel must
submit

an

affidavit

certifying

the

attempted

resolution

and

specifying which issues were resolved and which remain.
Although the plaintiff attached a purported affidavit to his

motion,

the

document

is

not

sworn

declaration under penalty of perjury.

and

does

not

contain

a

In addition, the document

contains no description of any discussions to resolve the discovery
dispute.

In opposition, defendants’ counsel states that there has

been no good faith discussion.
plaintiff

by

telephone,

the

Although counsel did speak to the
plaintiff

could

not

discuss

the

disputed discovery issues because he did not have his legal papers
and, although counsel asked the plaintiff to schedule another legal
call, the plaintiff has not done so.

The Court concludes that

the plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of Local Rule
37 before filing this motion. Accordingly, the motion to compel is
denied without prejudice. The plaintiff is reminded that he should
seek only discovery related to the incident underlying this action
in his discovery requests. Information related to other encounters
between the plaintiff and police officials is not relevant to the
issues in this case.

If the plaintiff has filed other lawsuits

regarding those other encounters, he should seek discovery relating
to the other encounters in those cases.
The defendants also inform the Court that, although the Court
granted them permission to depose the plaintiff, the plaintiff
refuses to be deposed until the Court rules on his objection to the
deposition.

The plaintiff wants the deposition delayed until all

discovery issues have been resolved.

The defendants are not

required to wait to schedule the deposition.

2

If the plaintiff

cannot respond to a particular question because he required a item
requested in discovery to formulate his answer, he may indicate
that in response to the question.

The plaintiff’s objection is

overruled.
In conclusion, the plaintiff’s motion to compel [doc. #52] is
DENIED without prejudice and his objection to deposition

[doc.

#44] is OVERRULED.
SO

ORDERED

this

14th

day

of

April

2011,

at

Hartford,

Connecticut.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate Judge

3