Ramos v. LaJoie et al
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Compel. See attached ORDER. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on December 11, 2012. (Pylman, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MICHAEL LAJOIE, et al.,
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. #24]
The plaintiff moves to compel responses to his February 2012
Motions to compel are governed by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the District of Connecticut Local Civil
The local rule 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
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 affidavit
certifying the attempted resolution and specifying which issues
were resolved and which remain.
In addition, Local Rule 37(b)1
requires that copies of the discovery requests must be included as
interrogatories to his motion, he has not demonstrated compliance
with any of other requirements.
In addition, the remaining defendant correctly states that he
was granted an extension of time, until thirty days after the court
ruled on his motion to dismiss to respond to outstanding discovery.
The plaintiff filed his motion to compel before this period had
Also, the only remaining defendant is Joshua Trifone.
The plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. #24] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this
/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?