Stanley v. Meier et al
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,
Case No. 3:09-cv-1643(CFD)(TPS)
SGT. MEIER, et al.,
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.
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).
discussions are not successful, the party moving to compel must
specifying which issues were resolved and which remain.
Although the plaintiff attached a purported affidavit to his
declaration under penalty of perjury.
In addition, the document
contains no description of any discussions to resolve the discovery
In opposition, defendants’ counsel states that there has
been no good faith discussion.
Although counsel did speak to 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
The plaintiff wants the deposition delayed until all
discovery issues have been resolved.
The defendants are not
required to wait to schedule the deposition.
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
In conclusion, the plaintiff’s motion to compel [doc. #52] is
DENIED without prejudice and his objection to deposition
#44] is OVERRULED.
/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?