Baltayan v. Tito et al
ORDER denying 53 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 54 Motion to Stay; denying 56 Motion to Compel; denying 56 Motion for Sanctions; denying 60 Motion to Stay. See attached Ruling and Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on March 30, 2011. (Keefe, B.)
Baltayan v. Tito et al
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHARLES M. BALTAYAN, - Plaintiff, v. BARBARA J. TITO, JAMES W. CLYNES, SCOTT D. JACKSON, ROBERT A. ACETO, - Defendants. No. 3:10-CV-1327(CFD)
Ruling and Order
Introduction There are currently four motions pending before the
The pro se plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider
a discovery ruling (Dkt. #53), and a motion for sanctions and to compel discovery (Dkt. #56). discovery (Dkt. #54, #60). motions are DENIED. II. Discussion A. The Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. #53) Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider its February 15, 2011 Ruling and Order (Dkt. #51). Plaintiff objects to the Ruling and The defendants have moved to stay
For the reasons that follow, all four
Order because the February 7, 2011 telephonic discovery hearing was ended early and the plaintiff feels he was not given an opportunity
magistrate wrote in that Ruling and Order, both sides had a sufficient amount of time during the conference in which to make their arguments, and, in combination with the memoranda submitted by the parties, the Magistrate was fully informed to make the ruling. Ruling and Order 1-2. The plaintiff's motion to
reconsider (Dkt. #53) is DENIED. Order remains undisturbed.
The February 15, 2011 Ruling and
B. Motion for Sanctions and to Compel (Dkt. #56) The plaintiff moves the court to compel the defendants to comply with his discovery requests. "[t]he [d]efendants have ignored, The plaintiff claims that half answered, delayed and
otherwise acted in bad faith by not filing timely [o]bjections to [s]ubpoenas and [d]iscovery [r]equests, answering partially when concise, specific information is sought and available." Pl.'s Mot. 1. The plaintiff further argues that the defendants have not
responded to his 2/17/11 discovery request and that the discovery deadline was 2/22/11; therefore, the plaintiff claims, the
defendants are not complying with his requests and sanctions are necessary. Id. First, they say
The defendants respond with three arguments.
that they have complied with the requests on October 29, 2010, December 9, 2010, and February 8, 2011. Def.'s Objection 1.
Second, the defendants state that as for the February 17, 2011
requests, the motion to compel is premature.
cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2) to demonstrate that answers and any objections to the plaintiff's requests are not due until thirty days after the defendants are served with them. Id.
Third, the defendants argue that the plaintiff did not confer with the defendants before filing the motion to compel as is required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). The magistrate agrees with Id. at 2. defendants. The party
responding to interrogatories have thirty days to submit their answers to the requesting party. F. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Since
the defendants were served on February 17, 2011 with the requests, the filling of a motion to compel on March 3, 2010, only fourteen days later, is premature. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not
confer with the defendant in a good faith effort to eliminate or reduce the area of controversy and to arrive at a mutually
The plaintiff also failed to submit an
affidavit certifying the good faith attempt as required by the local rules. L. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Accordingly, the plaintiff's
motion to compel and for sanctions (Dkt. #56) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. C. Motions to Stay Discovery (Dkt. #54, #60) The defendants filed separate motions to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending. However, in light of Judge
Droney's October 14, 2010 order (Dkt. #30) that "discovery is not 3
stayed pending a decision on the . . . motion to dismiss," the motions to stay are DENIED. III. Conclusion This is not a recommended ruling. This is a discovery ruling
and order reviewable pursuant to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. 28 U.S.C. 636 (b) (1) (A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 (a), (e)
and 72 (a); and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for U.S. Magistrate Judges. As such, it is an order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b) (written objections to ruling must be filed within fourteen days after service of same). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 30th day of March, 2011.
/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?