Fabula v. American Medical Response, Inc.

Filing 130

ORDER: See attached discovery order. Any motion to compel shall be filed by no later than 9/4/2018. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 8/13/2018.(Greenspoon, L.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES ex rel. PAUL FABULA, :
:
Plaintiff-Relator,
:
:
v.
:
:
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
:
OF CONNECTICUT, INC.,
:
:
Defendant.
:

CASE NO. 3:12cv921(MPS)

ORDER
The court has reviewed the [128] letter briefs submitted by
the parties and concludes that the discovery dispute at issue is
best decided upon a motion and briefing. If the parties cannot
resolve the underlying issues on their own, the plaintiff may
file a motion to compel in compliance with Rule 37 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 37 of the Local Rules
of Civil Procedure. Any such motion shall be filed by 9/4/2018
and shall set forth in the body of the accompanying memorandum
(1) the specific, verbatim text of each discovery request at
issue, followed by (2) the opposing party's response and/or
objection, and (3) "the reason why the item should be allowed."
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(b)(1).
Where defendant objects on privilege grounds, defendant's
opposition shall include an adequately detailed privilege log.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and Local Rule 26(e). Such a log
should be accompanied by an evidentiary declaration of an

individual with personal knowledge of the facts. See Davis v.
City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 699(SAS)(HBP), 2012 WL 612794, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2012) ("[T]he parties asserting
privilege... have the burden of establishing through [their]
privilege log, affidavits, or other evidentiary material that
the elements of the privilege exist.") The court reserves
decision as to whether, after review of the parties' briefs, it
shall conduct an in camera review.
The parties are reminded of their meet and confer
obligations under both the federal and local rules of civil
procedure to resolve any differences and present to the court
only those issues of discovery that are necessary for the full
weight of judicial authority.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 requires that

a motion to compel "include a certification that the movant has
in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person
or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to
obtain it without court action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
Local Rule 37 provides:

"No motion pursuant to Rules 26 through

37, Fed. R. Civ. P. shall be filed unless counsel making the
motion has conferred, in person or by telephone, with opposing
counsel and discussed the discovery issues between them in
detail in a good faith effort to eliminate or reduce the area of
controversy, and to arrive at a mutually satisfactory
resolution."

D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(a).
2

The importance of the

meet and confer requirement cannot be overstated: it "ensures
that when limited court resources are taxed to address discovery
disputes, they are in fact ripe for determination, the issues
have been framed for the ease of the court, and the parties are
firmly convinced of their inability to arrive at a mutually
acceptable compromise among themselves." Cornell Research
Found., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55, 59 (N.D.N.Y.
2003).
Dated this 13th day of August, 2018 at Hartford,
Connecticut.
_______________/s/____________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

3