John v. Bridgeport et al

Filing 83

ORDER : Plaintiff's motion 77 to compel is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 9/12/16. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BARBARA JOHN,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

CASE NO.

3:14CV1484(RNC)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion (doc. #77)
to compel.

The motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to

comply with Local Rule 37.
Discovery
intervention."

"is

intended

to

take

place

without

judicial

Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., No. 04 CIV. 1514,

2008 WL 2224288, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008).

Both the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and our Local Rules encourage cooperation
among counsel to resolve discovery disputes efficiently without
intervention from the court.

See, e.g.,

Valente v. Lincoln Nat.

Corp., No. 3:09CV693(MRK), 2010 WL 3522495, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept.
2, 2010) (discovery process "actually works quite well when the
attorneys for all the parties, consistent with their dual roles as
both advocates for their clients and officers of the Court, are
willing to cooperate with one another and act reasonably and in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."); 8B Charles
A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice
& Procedure § 2288 (3rd ed. 2010) (Discovery rules designed "to

encourage

extrajudicial

discovery

with

a

minimum

of

court

Procedure

37(a)

intervention.")
Toward

that

end,

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

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).
The analog to that provision in our Local Rules requires more of
the movant:
No motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed.R.Civ.P.
shall be filed unless counsel making the motion has
conferred 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. In
the event the consultations of counsel do not fully
resolve the discovery issues, counsel making a discovery
motion shall file with the Court, as part of the motion
papers, an affidavit certifying that he or she has
conferred with counsel for the opposing party in an
effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues
raised by the motion without the intervention of the
Court, and has been unable to reach such an agreement. If
some of the issues raised by the motion have been
resolved by agreement, the affidavit shall specify the
issues so resolved and the issues remaining unresolved.
D. Conn. Loc. R. 37(a)(emphasis added).
"Courts

in

this

District

have

also

stated

that the

meet-and-confer requirement of our Local Rules and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure requires the parties to 'meet, in person
or by telephone.'"

Doe v. Mastoloni, 307 F.R.D. 305, 313 (D. Conn.

2015)(Haight, J.). In other words, an exchange of email barbs will

2

not suffice.
effort

to

Counsel must actually communicate in a good faith
resolve

discovery

disputes

without

the

Court's

assistance.
The plaintiff's submission does not meet these requirements.
The plaintiff's motion suffers from other deficiencies as well. It
does not, as required, set forth in the memorandum of law the
"specific verbatim listing" of each discovery request in dispute,
that is, the text of each discovery request in contention; the
response and/or objection at issue; and the "reason why the item
should be allowed."

See Local Rule 37 (b)(1).

Any new motion shall comply with the requirements of the
Federal

and

Local

Civil

Rules

of

Procedure,

including

those

governing formatting and page limitations. See Local Rule 7(a)(2).
SO

ORDERED

at

Hartford,

Connecticut

this

12th

day

September, 2016.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

3

of