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.)

Download PDF
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

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?