Duverge v. USA

Filing 97

RULING denying without prejudice to renew defendant's 91 94 Motions to Dismiss (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 4/29/16. (Malone, A.)

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: APRIL 29, 2016

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
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)["March 2015 Order"], Ruling on Defendant's Pending Motions,
filed January 19, 2016 (Dkt. #89)["January 2016 Ruling"], and Order Regarding Status
Reports, filed March 2, 2016 (Dkt. #90)["March 2016 Order"]. The second to last paragraph
of the January 2016 Ruling provided as follows:
The amount of micro-managing required by the Court in this file is
simply shameful. On or before February 26, 2016, plaintiff's pro bono
counsel must communicate with his client and provide copies of all of
plaintiff's medical records to defendant, including those following her release
from prison, and file a Status Report reflecting the same. If the relationship
between plaintiff and pro bono counsel is untenable, then, consistent with the
March 2015 Order, on or before February 26, 2016, either plaintiff's pro
bono counsel shall file a Motion for Relief from Appointment consistent with
all the provisions of Local Rule 83.10(d), or plaintiff herself shall file a Motion
for Discharge pursuant to Local Rule 83.10(e), or both.
(At 2-3)(internal citations omitted)(emphasis in original). The discovery deadline was
extended, "once again," until today, including expert discovery, and the deadline for
dispositive motions was extended until May 31, 2016. (At 3).
After the deadline of February 26, 2016 came and passed without any compliance on

plaintiff's side, the March 2016 Order provided as follows:
Despite the clear directive of the January 2016 Ruling, plaintiff failed
to file any Status Report regarding compliance with discovery or a Motion for
Relief from Appointment by February 26, 2016. If such Status Report or
Motion for Relief from Appointment is not filed on or before March 11,
2016, the Court will entertain a Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant for
plaintiff's non-compliance with the January 2016 Ruling and for the previous
instances of non-compliance addressed in the March 2015 Order and January
2016 Ruling.
(At 1-2)(emphasis in original).
With the March 11, 2016 deadline having lapsed without any compliance on plaintiff's
side, on March 14, 2016, defendant filed the pending Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #91), which
motion prompted plaintiff's pro bono counsel the next day to file his Motion to Continue Date
for Status Report Nunc Pro Tunc (Dkt. #92), seeking an extension until April 1, 2016.
Plaintiff's counsel explained that he had "forgotten[]" the date because he was on trial in a
murder case in the Connecticut Superior Court. (Id.).

The Magistrate Judge granted

plaintiff's motion two days later. (Dkt. #93).
The April 1, 2016 deadline having come and gone without any compliance on
plaintiff's side, on April 4, 2016, defendant filed its Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #94),
thereby prompting plaintiff's pro bono counsel to file the long-awaited Status Report (Dkt.
#95) that day.

In this Status Report, plaintiff's pro bono counsel represents that he

forwarded defendant's discovery requests to plaintiff in late January 2016, in mid-February
2016 plaintiff indicated that she would be returning them to him shortly, in late March 2016
she inquired of him whether he had received her responses to which he responded in the
negative and asked her to re-send them, and that he has not received anything further from
her.

(Dkt. #95, ¶¶ 2-3).

Plaintiff's pro bono counsel also represents that it may be

necessary for plaintiff to travel to his office to complete the interrogatory responses, and she
2

can be deposed thereafter. (Id., ¶¶ 4-8).1
As previously indicated, in the January 2016 Ruling, the Court "once again" extended
the discovery deadline until today, and also extended the deadline for dispositive motions
until May 31, 2016. (At 3). It is simply unfathomable, in these days of truly supersonic
communications, that discovery requests that were supposedly forwarded to plaintiff's pro
bono counsel in mid-February 2016 and that were supposedly requested to be re-sent in late
March 2016 still have not been forwarded to defense counsel. Accordingly, for the very
last and final time, the deadline is extended until May 31, 2016, for defendant to receive
full and complete responses to the pending discovery requests, the deadline for the
completion of discovery is extended until July 29, 2016, and the deadline for all dispositive
motions, including expert discovery, is extended until August 31, 2016.

If defense

counsel does not receive full and complete responses to the pending discovery requests
by May 31, 2016, the Court will not hesitate, sua sponte, or upon motion by defendant, to
dismiss this case with prejudice.
Accordingly, defendant's Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. ##91 & 94) are denied without
prejudice to renew as appropriate.

1

On April 14, 2016, plaintiff filed her Pro Se Motion [sic] Opposing Defendant['s] Motion to
Dismiss and Request for a Trial Date (Dkt. #96), in which she represents that she mailed her
responses to pro bono counsel in late February 2016 and is waiting to hear back from him. (At 2).
As the Court noted in the January 2016 Ruling, "It goes without saying that any briefs in opposition
should have been filed by plaintiff's pro bono counsel, and not by plaintiff herself pro se." (At 2,
n.3).

3

Dated this 29th day of April, 2016, at New Haven, Connecticut.

/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

4