Leftridge v. Burnham et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 or Motion to Preclude. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. The Motion to Preclude is GRANTED. 3 pages.. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 10/29/13. (Esposito, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
VERNON LEFTRIDGE
v.
KEVIN J. BURNHAM, ELLEN S.
NURSE and KEVIN R. JOINER

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. NO. 3:11CV1648 (WWE)

RULING ON DEFENDANT JOINER’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR MOTION TO
PRECLUDE [DOC. #70].
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 that the
substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution was violated. He also 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.

1

Pending is defendant Joiner’s Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative to Preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence of
damages due to failure to comply with Court Order [Doc. #70].
On October 8, 2013, plaintiff was ordered to provide
complete supplemental answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 9
and Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 2.

[Doc. #65].

Plaintiff

was cautioned that, “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.” [Doc. #65 at 2]. It was further
ordered that, “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.” Id.
Plaintiff contends that he supplemented his discovery
responses on October 11, 2013, “in good faith, completely and to
the best of his ability.” [Doc. #71 at 1].

2

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant Joiner’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED
and the Motion to Preclude is GRANTED. [Doc. #70]
Plaintiff is precluded from testifying or offering evidence
beyond what was provided in his October 11, 2013, Supplementary
Responses. This order of preclusion includes documentary support
for damages such as proof of purchase, receipts and/or credit
card or bank statements.
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 29th day of October 2013.
_____/s/_______________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3