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

. ..L...e-...-.._L...Me...—~——-—-·-~————;-—"*····———— '“i";'“T" I
Case 3:02-cv-OZMCCFA Document 38 Filed 05/2%-2504 Paget of 2 I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ___1,_ I
` GZ fi I
?2‘(D r.,____)
¤i= ta ¢¤ ""*°i I
XF ""` I
ij Fl I
MIGUEL A. DIAZ : Qi Li ·»· G; '
: PRISONEIRE;5 ?.°-i"°=~:
v. : Case No. 3:O2CV2147 §JI§A)(§M)
BRIAN FOLEY, etal.
I
1
RULING AND ORDER
Defendants seek leave to depose plaintiff. Defendants’ motion [dkt. #35] is
GRANTED. I
Plaintiff asks the court to compel defendants to respond to his interrogatories I
and seeks sanctions for their failure to respond. In support of his motion he has filed a
notice stating that he informed defendants that failure to respond to his interrogatories
within f0rty—five days would result in his filing a motion to compel.
Rule 37, D. Conn. L. Civ. R., provides in relevant part:
I
No motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., I
shall be filed unless counsel making the motion has I
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.
The purpose of this rule is to encourage the parties to make a good faith effort to
resolve the dispute without the intervention of the court. E Getschmann v. James
I
I I
F


Y


l i
Case 3:02-cv-O2147@A Document 38 Filed 05/29/@04 Page 2 Of 2 V
i
River Pager Co., inc., Civil 5:92cv163 (WWE), slip op. at 2 (D. Conn. January 14,
1993) (court should not "become unnecessarily involved in disputes that can and I
should be resolved by the parties"). In addition, Rule 37 requires that any discovery _
motion be accompanied by a memorandum of law "contain[ing] a concise statement of N
the nature of the case and a specific verbatim listing of each of the items of discovery ;
sought or opposed .... "
Plaintiffs motion fails to comply with either requirement. Defendants have
provided a copy of their December 2003 objections to the interrogatories. Although the
objections were served before plaintiff attempted his resolution, he has not made any
effort to revise or justify the objectionable interrogatories. Thus, plaintiff has not made
a good faith effort to resolve this matter. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to compel and
his request for sanctions [dkt. #31] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 2'Jr ili l` day of Maly, 2004, at New Haven, Connecticut.
\ .
l
UN D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE E
2 l
i
l
l
l
i
l
_._.1é.._..