Ortiz v. Arnone
RULING denying 28 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 9/25/2012. (Payton, R.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CASE NO: 3:11cv1793(SRU)(WIG)
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. #28]
The plaintiff moves to compel responses to his April 2, 2012
interrogatories/requests for production.
Motions to compel are governed by Rule 37 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Connecticut Local
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.
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.
If discussions are not successful, the party moving to
compel must submit an affidavit certifying the attempted
resolution and specifying which issues were resolved and which
In addition, Local Rule 37(b)1 requires that copies of
the discovery requests must be included as exhibits.
The plaintiff has not demonstrated compliance with any of
Thus, his motion to compel [Doc. #28] is
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this
/s/ William I. Garfinkel
William I. Garfinkel
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?