Arnold v. Buck, et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Order; denying 63 Motion to Compel; and granting 64 Motion for Extension of Time. See attached memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on November 5, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
DAVID BUCK, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:11-cv-1343 (VLB)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
Pending are the plaintiff’s motion for court order and motion for order
compelling discovery and the defendants’ motion for extension of time to
respond to discovery requests.

I. Motion for Court Order and Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery
The plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the defendants to respond to his
April 2012 discovery requests and also seeks a court order that they respond to
the requests.
Motions to compel discovery are governed by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the District of Connecticut Local Civil Rules. 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 court
intervention. 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
1

specifying which issues were resolved and which remain.
In addition, Rule 37(b)1 requires that any discovery motion be
accompanied by a memorandum of law “contain[ing] a concise statement of the
nature of the case and a specific verbatim listing of each of the items of discovery
sought or opposed, and immediately following each specification shall set forth
the reason why the item should be allowed or disallowed.” Copies of the
discovery requests must be included as exhibits.
In opposition, the defendants note that the plaintiff has not complied with
any of these requirements. The plaintiff’s motion to compel and motion for court
order are denied.

II. Motion for Extension of Time
The defendants seek an extension of time, until November 17, 2012, to
respond to the plaintiff’s September 17, 2012 discovery requests. In opposition,
the plaintiff states that no extension should be granted as the defendants have
had since April 2012 to respond to his discovery requests and the court stated on
September 2, 2012, that no further extensions would be required. The defendants
seek an extension to respond to discovery requests served by the plaintiff after
the conference with the court. As these requests had not yet been served, the
court’s statement does not apply to the September 17, 2012 requests.
The deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case is October 30, 2012.
If the defendants’ motion is granted in full, the plaintiff will not have the requested
discovery in sufficient time to respond to the motion. Accordingly, the
2

defendants’ motion is granted in part. The defendants shall serve their
responses to the September 17, 2012 discovery requests on or before October 30,
2012.
III. Conclusion
The plaintiff’s motion for court order [Doc. #62] and motion to compel
discovery [Doc. #63] are DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the
requirements of Local Rule 37.
The defendants’ motion for extension of time [Doc. #64] is GRANTED in
part. The defendants shall respond to the plaintiff’s September 17, 2012
discovery requests on or before November 9, 2012.
The deadline for filing dispositive motions remains October 30, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
________/s/________________
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: November 5, 2012.

3