Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

-“__ .... MIl.¤.....i“M............—m”.“—.—.-.—--—Mm--—~—--—————~-————————~~———————»e—%-.
, I Case 3:03-cv—00232—DFM Document 27 Filed 12/10/2004 Page1 of3
I I
. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Erghngig) I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT IO A
cb G8 I
Wl
BRISTOUT BOURGUIGNON I
V. PRISONER I
Case No. 3:03CV232 (RNC) (DFM)
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG, et al.
I RULING AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion to compel
and motion to review videotapes. For the reasons set forth
below, the motions are denied. I
I. Motion to Compel doc. § 24 I
The plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to respond to
his June 21, 2004 interrogatories, June 22, 2004, requests for
admission and his March 24, 2004 request for production. A party
may seek the assistance of the court only after he has complied
with the provisions of Rule 37(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of I
Civil Procedure and Rule 37(a)2 of the Local Civil Rules of the I
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. I
Under both rules, a motion to compel must include a certification
that the plaintiff has made an attempt to confer with opposing
counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute
without the intervention of the court. I








· ‘ Case 3:03-cv—00232—DFM Document 27 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 2 of 3 »
The plaintiff states that the defendants filed objections to jg
his request for production, interrogatories and requests for I
admission. He does not indicate that he attempted to contact
counsel for the defendants in an effort to resolve any problems i
he has with the defendants’ responses to the discovery requests. gl
Thus, he has failed to file a certification that he has made a {
good faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute without the ZJ
intervention of the court. Because the plaintiff has not lg
complied with the provisions of Local Rule 37(a)2, the
plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied without prejudice. Q
II. Motion to Review videotapes doc. § 25[
_ The plaintiff asks the court to order the defendants to W
l permit him to review the December l2, 2002 videotape of the W
overcrowded gym and the December I5, 2002 videotape of the W
alleged use of excessive force in a “close session.” Mot. Review
at 2. He claims that his case depends on the videotapes and he
should be permitted to review them to enable him to effectively `
try his case. The defendants have moved to dismiss this case and I
the case is not scheduled for trial. The plaintiff does not i
allege that he has made any attempt to ask the defendants or
counsel for the defendants to allow him to view the videotapes. 5
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s request for a court order directing _
the defendants to produce the videotapes for review is premature. p
The motion is denied without prejudice. }

- N
’ ` Case 3:03-cv—00232—DFM Document 27 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 3 of 3
Conclusion i
The Motion to Compel [doc. # 24] and Motion for Review of Q
Videotapes [doc. # 25] are DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED in Hartford, Connecticut this 9* of December,
2004. w
Donna F. Martinez i
United States Magistrate Judge
1
E5
U
W