Hoth v. Lantz et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 49 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on August 24, 2012. (Gentile, N.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CRAIG HOTH,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
THERESA LANTZ, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO:

3:10cv1081(WWE)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. #49]
The plaintiff has filed a motion to compel claiming that the
discovery responses he received in June 2012 were deficient and
that the defendants have made false statements regarding his
medical care.
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

specifying
addition,

affidavit
which
Rule

certifying

issues

37(b)1

the

attempted

were

resolved

requires

that

resolution

and which
copies

requests must be included as exhibits.

of

remain.
the

and
In

discovery

The plaintiff has not

provided the required affidavit, makes no reference to any good

faith effort to resolve the dispute and has not attached copies of
the discovery requests.

Instead, he reiterates his demand for all

of the documents originally requested.

Thus, the plaintiff’s

motion to compel is denied.
In addition, the defendants explain in their opposition papers
how the plaintiff can review the videotape of the incident and have
provided the applicable versions of Administrative Directives.
They repeat their argument that they need not provide a copy of the
plaintiff’s medical file since 2004.
Rule 34(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits any party to serve a
request that documents be produced for inspection and copying. The
rule does not require that copies of all requested documents be
provided to the requesting party at the expense of the providing
party.

See 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.13[5] at 34-92 (2011)

(citing Clever View Investments, Ltd. v. Oshatz, 233 F.R.D. 393,
394 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (producing party bears cost of making documents
available for inspection and copying but reproduction is not
necessarily required)).

Thus, the defendants are not required to

assume the cost of copying the plaintiff’s entire medical file for
the last eight years.
The plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. #49] is DENIED.

2

SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 24th day of August
2012.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate Judge

3