Darazs v. Brighthaupt et al

Filing 19

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,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
JON BRIGHTHAUPT, et al.,
Defendants.

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.
2012.
assist

The deposition was approved in April

Since that time, the plaintiff has not retained counsel to
him

in

the

deposition.

In

fact,

in

his

motion

for

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
defendants

may

file

a

motion

to

dismiss

this

action.

See

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

19th

day of September, 2012 at Hartford,

Connecticut.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate Judge

2