Duverge v. USA
Filing
111
ORDER granting 110 Motion to Compel. SEE ATTACHED. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 2/28/2017. (Saffir, Jaclyn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------------------------------x
:
CHARLOTINE DUVERGE
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
------------------------------------------------------x
3:10 CV 1922 (JGM)
DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2016
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
The factual and procedural history behind this litigation has been set forth in
considerable detail in this Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed April 7, 2014 (Dkt. #68), Order Regarding Appearance for Plaintiff, filed
March 25, 2015 (Dkt. #78), Ruling on Defendant's Pending Motions, filed January 19, 2016
(Dkt. #89), Order Regarding Status Reports, filed March 2, 2016 (Dkt. #90), Ruling on
Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, filed April 29, 2016 (Dkt. #97), and Ruling on Defendant’s
Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss and on Motion to Withdraw as [Pro Bono] Counsel, filed
August 2, 2016 (Dkt. #102)[“August 2016 Ruling”].
As set forth in these various rulings, this judicial officer has been abundantly patient
and charitable to plaintiff, in extending the deadlines by which she is to serve “full and
complete” responses to defendant’s discovery requests. The August 2016 Ruling directed the
Clerk’s Office to find substitute pro bono counsel for plaintiff, at least for the purpose of
completing discovery, and further ordered that “for the very last and final time,” the
deadline for plaintiff to provide “full and complete” responses to the pending discovery
requests was extended until September 16, 2016. (Id. at 2)(emphasis in original). The ruling
further forewarned: “If defense counsel does not receive full and complete responses to
the pending discovery requests by [this deadline], the Court will not hesitate, sua sponte, or
upon renewed motion by defendant, to dismiss this case with prejudice[,]” with the caveat
that the deadline would be extended only if the Clerk’s Office had difficulty in locating
substitute pro bono counsel for plaintiff. (Id. at 2-3 & n.1)(emphasis in original).
Shortly thereafter, the Clerk’s Office located an attorney willing to represent plaintiff
for discovery purposes only (Dkts. ##103-04),1 following which an in-person status
conference was held. (Dkts. ##106-08). During this conference, counsel agreed, and the
Court ordered, that all fact discovery (including depositions of all fact witnesses) be
completed by January 31, 2017, and that all Motions to Compel with respect to fact discovery
be filed by January 31, 2017. (Dkt. #109, ¶¶ 1-2).2
On January 30, 2017, defendant filed the pending Motion to Compel (Dkt. #110),3
as to which plaintiff failed to file a timely brief in opposition under Local Rule 7(a)2. For the
reasons stated in defendant’s motion, the motion (Dkt. #110) is granted with respect to
Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17, and Requests for Production
Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Plaintiff shall comply on or before March 22, 2017. As forewarned in
the August 2016 Ruling, if defense counsel does not receive full and complete responses
1
Attorney Baldwin is the sixth attorney to represent plaintiff in this litigation in some
capacity. See Dkts. ##22 (privately retained counsel); 23 (another privately retained counsel); 3233, 35, 38 (withdrawal of appearance by one of these attorneys); 39, 41-42 (withdrawal of
appearance by the other of these attorneys); 44-46, 51-53 (plaintiff’s request for appointment of
pro bono counsel for attorney, Court’s granting of same, and appearances of pro bono counsel for
settlement purposes only); 58-60 (withdrawal of appearances by pro bono counsel); 70, 78, 89-90
(regarding appointment of pro bono counsel for all purposes); 99, 102 (withdrawal of pro bono
counsel).
See also Dkts. ##36, 69, 73 (regarding pro se appearance).
2
In addition, deadlines were set for completing expert discovery and filing dispositive
motions. (Id., ¶¶ 3-4).
3
Attached was a copy of Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Plaintiff, sworn to September 16, 2016.
2
to the pending discovery requests by March 22, 2017, the Court will not hesitate, sua
sponte, or upon renewed motion by defendant, to dismiss this case with prejudice.
Dated this 28th day of February, 2017, at New Haven, Connecticut.
/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?