Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00232-DFM

Document 29

Filed 03/18/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRISTOUT BOURGUIGNON VS. JOHN ARMSTRONG, ET AL. : : : : : PRISONER CIVIL NO. 3:03CV232(RNC)

MARCH 16, 2005

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY On March 7, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting this Court to order the defdnants to coopereate in discovery by compelling them to answer his discovery requests and request to view videotapes. However, in that same motion the plaintiff admited, in paragraphs two and three, that the defendants not only timely responded to his discovery requests, but took the extra step of writing him a letter in which it was explained why objections were made to his requests and in which it was suggested that he redraft his requests in such a manner so as to avoid objection. The fact that the plaintiff has not followed the rules for discovery by directing his requests to a particular individual, and drafted requests which were objectionable for a variety of reasons, does not constitute legitimate grounds for an order to compel under either Rule 33 or 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion should be denied.

Case 3:03-cv-00232-DFM

Document 29

Filed 03/18/2005

Page 2 of 2

DEFENDANTS JOHN ARMSTRONG, ET AL RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:__/s/_________________________________ Robert B. Fiske, III Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No. ct17831 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone No.: (860) 808-5450 Fax No.: (860) 808-5591 E-Mail: [email protected]

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the following on this, the 17th day of March, 2005, to: Bristout Bourguignon, # 265860 MacDougal C.I. 1153 East South Street Suffield, CT 06080 __/s/_______________________________ Robert B. Fiske, III Assistant Attorney General

2