Darazs v. Brighthaupt et al
ORDER granting 17 Defendant's Motion to Compel the Plaintiff to Respond to Deposition Questions; denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. See attached Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on September 19, 2012. (Pylman, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHRISTOPHER MIKE DARAZS,
JON BRIGHTHAUPT, et al.,
Case No. 3:11-cv-2019 (AVC)
RULING AND ORDER
The defendants seek a court order directing the plaintiff to
answer deposition questions.
In response, the plaintiff asks the
court to defer his deposition until counsel has been appointed.
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel on August 24, 2012.
The deposition was approved in April
Since that time, the plaintiff has not retained counsel to
appointment of counsel, filed in July 2012, he stated that he had
made no efforts to obtain counsel on his own.
The plaintiff has no
constitutional right to counsel in a civil matter. The plaintiff’s
motion for extension of time [Doc. #18] is DENIED.
The defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff to respond to
deposition questions [Doc. #17] is GRANTED.
directed to re-notice the deposition.
The defendants are
The plaintiff is cautioned
that if he fails to participate fully in the deposition, the
Salahuddin v. Harris, 782 F.2d 1127, 1133 (2d Cir. 1986) (noting
that dismissal may be used as a sanction if deponent acts wilfully
or in bad faith).
SO ORDERED this
day of September, 2012 at Hartford,
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
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?