Murphy v. State of Connecticut Eastern Connecticut State University et al

Filing 29

RULING (see attached) denying as moot 24 Defendants' Motion to Compel. Defendants' requests for attorney's fees and costs in bringing the motion are also denied. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on April 13, 2012. (Dorais, L.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JENNIFER MURPHY
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
EASTERN CONNECTICUT
STATE UNIVERSITY, LAWRENCE
BOTTING, and JEFFREY GAREWSKI
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No: 3:11-cv-01228 (CSH)

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
On February 14, 2012, Defendants moved to compel production of Plaintiff’s initial
disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That same day,
Plaintiff provided Defendants with the initial disclosures and filed an opposition to Defendants’
motion to compel. Because Plaintiff has produced the initial disclosures, Defendants’ Motion to
Compel [Doc. No. 24] is DENIED as moot.
Defendants have requested that the Court award attorney’s fees and the costs associated
with filing the motion to compel. Local Rule 37 provides that no motion pursuant to Rule 26
through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “shall be filed unless counsel making the
motion has conferred with opposing counsel and discussed the discovery issues between them in
detail in a good faith effort to eliminate or reduce the area of controversy, and to arrive at a
mutually satisfactory resolution.” D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(a).
As evidenced by Plaintiff’s production of the initial disclosures a mere eight minutes
after the filing of the instant motion, the Court’s involvement was unnecessary and the parties
should have resolved this dispute amongst themselves. Accordingly, Defendants’ requests for

attorney’s fees and costs are DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
April 13, 2012

/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

2