Owens v. Connecticut et al

Filing 84

ORDER re 79 Notice (Other) filed by Marvin E. Owens. See attached Order. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 4/24/2018.(Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARVIN E. OWENS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER MICHAEL NOVIA,
et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO.

3:16cv898(RNC)

ORDER
On March 5, 2018, the plaintiff filed an "Objection" to the
defendants' discovery responses.

(Doc. #79.)

The plaintiff first states that certain of the defendants'
responses to his requests for admissions are "evasive."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 provides that a party responding to
requests for admission may either admit, deny, object to the
request with the reasons therefor, or set out in detail the reasons
why

he

or

she

qualification

cannot

when

the

responding

party

cannot

necessary

contextual

respond.
request
in

"An
is

good

explanation

admission

ostensibly

faith
to

admit
remedy

may

true,
it

require
but

without
any

the
some

improper

inferences." 7 Moore's Federal Practice § 36.11 at 36-11 (3d ed.
2017).

Rule 36's function "is to define and limit matters in

controversy between the parties." 8B Wright & Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2252 at p. 321 (3rd ed. 2010).

"The rule

is intended to expedite the trial and to relieve the parties of the
cost of proving facts that will not be disputed at trial, the truth

of

which

is

known

to

the

parties

or

can

be

ascertained

by

reasonable inquiry." Id. at p. 322.
[R]equests for admission are used to establish
admission of facts about which there is no real dispute.
. . . Requests for admissions are not intended for
factual
discovery
that
should
be
done
through
interrogatories and depositions. They are a cruder device
because a party may accept, deny or object to facts
phrased by the opposition. They exist to narrow the
issues at trial where the parties' unambiguously agree.
The fact is that parties in litigation conflict. They
believe different things and they have different
interpretations of both words and events. The party that
proffers the requests must recognize that its opponent
may read those words differently.
Saliga v. Chemtura Corp., No. 3:12CV832(RNC)(DFM), 2013 WL 6097100,
at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2013).
The plaintiff does not identify the particular requests for
admission in dispute.

If the plaintiff seeks to challenge the

sufficiency of defendants' responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
36, he must file an appropriate motion in compliance with the
federal and local rules setting forth the text of the specific
request for admission at issue, the defendant's response, and the
plaintiff's argument as to why the response is insufficient.
Before any such motion is filed, the plaintiff is required to
discuss the discovery issues in a good faith effort to eliminate or
reduce the area of controversy.

See Local Rule 7(a).

The plaintiff also states that the defendants failed to
produce responses to eight enumerated production requests.
doc. #79 at 5-7.

See

The court construes the plaintiff's request as to

2

these requests as a motion to compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
and Local Rule 37.

The defendants' response to the motion to

compel shall be filed by no later than May 16, 2018.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 24th day of April,
2018.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

3