Leftridge v. Burnham et al
RULING granting 56 MOTION to Compel Complete Compliance with First and Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production by Kevin R. Joiner. 4 pages. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 10/8/13. (Esposito, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
KEVIN J. BURNHAM, ELLEN S.
NURSE and KEVIN R. JOINER
CIV. NO. 3:11CV1648 (WWE)
RULING ON DEFENDANT JOINER’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff, represented by counsel,
brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging he was deprived of
his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable
seizure and detention of his personal property and the
substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution was violated. Also, he brings state
law claims of trespass upon the plaintiff’s residence and theft
of personal property, which would violate Connecticut common law
and Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-564 . [Amend. Compl. Doc. #28].
Defendants are Kevin J. Burnham, Director of the Department of
Public Works of the City of Hartford; Ellen S. Nurse, Constable
of the City of Hartford; and Kevin R. Joiner, Pump Operator at
Station 4, Fire Department of the City of Hartford.
Pending is defendant Joiner’s Motion to Compel [Doc. #56]
complete compliance with his First and Second Sets of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production.
A hearing was held on October 3, 2014.
Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 9, Request for Production Nos. 3
Plaintiff will provide a complete supplemental answer to
Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 9 and Request for Production Nos.
3 and 2 by October 15, 2013, in writing and under oath.
is no further evidence, plaintiff will state this in writing
Failure to provide a complete answer and support for
plaintiff’s damages by October 15, 2013, will result in an order
precluding plaintiff from offering testimony and evidence about
damages at trial.
Plaintiff’s counsel will sit down with her
client and designate the property returned to plaintiff, list the
missing property, provide transportation costs and fees, and
provide support for the value of missing property in support of
plaintiff’s damages claim. Plaintiff’s attorney will counsel her
client on the effect of an order of preclusion for failure to
provide a complete response and production to defendant’s
interrogatories and requests for production.
Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production No. 5: Emotional
During oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel withdrew any claim
for emotional distress.
Accordingly, plaintiff will be precluded
from testifying or offering evidence on the issue of emotional
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for to Compel [Doc. #56] is
Plaintiff will respond fully to defendant’s outstanding
interrogatories and requests for production by October 15, 2013.
Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to provide complete
supplemental responses may result in sanctions, including an
order precluding him from offering testimony or other evidence
based on information that was not provided by October 15, 2013;
or dismissal of the case.
This is not a recommended ruling. This is a discovery ruling and
order which is reviewable pursuant to the Aclearly erroneous@ statutory
standard of review. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); and
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2. As such, it is an order of the Court unless
reversed or modified by the district judge upon motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 8th day of October 2013.
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
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?