A. Bolden United States District Judge
Sharone Hubert, brought this action against Defendants,
Captain Kyle Godding, Deputy Warden Michael Davis, Correction
Officer Kevin Curry, Lieutenant Derrick Austin, and
Lieutenant Cicero Collender, each in his personal and
official capacities, and the State of Connecticut Department
of Correction (“DOC”), on April 4, 2014. On July
20, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for permission to file a
document under seal in relation to one exhibit in support of
a forthcoming motion to preclude, which contained
pornographic material. ECF No. 90. The Court granted that
motion to seal on July 22, 2016. ECF No. 92. Plaintiff now
files a response, nunc pro tunc, to Defendants'
motion for permission to file documents under seal, dated
November 13, 2016. ECF No. 108.
described below, Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to meet
deadlines and comply with the orders of this Court throughout
the history of this case. For that reason, the Court rejects
this nunc pro tunc filing and further orders that
the Court will no longer consider any future nunc pro
tunc or untimely filings by Plaintiff in this case.
Plaintiff must comply with the Court's deadlines with
regards to all future filings if she wishes to respond to
case was transferred to this Court (Bolden, J.) on January
26, 2015. ECF No. 24. Since that time, Plaintiff has
repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and comply with the
orders of this Court, both in filing motions and responses,
as well as in responding to discovery requests. Several
instances where Plaintiff failed to meet deadlines, or
otherwise comply with the orders of this Court, are detailed
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 11, 2015.
ECF No. 40. Local Rule 7 provides that responses to any
motion “shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days,
” thus July 2, 2015 was the due date for Plaintiffs
response. Local R. Civ. P. 7(a). Plaintiff did not file her
motion for extension, nunc pro tunc, until July
31, 2015. ECF No. 46. The Court granted the requested
extension of time, until August 25, 2015. ECF No. 47.
Plaintiff then failed to file her response to
Defendants' motion to dismiss on August 25, 2015,
instead filing a second motion for extension of time,
nunc pro tunc, on August 27, 2015. ECF No. 49.
This motion requested an extension of time until September
14, 2015. The Court granted this motion, but noted that the
Court would not grant future nunc pro tunc motions
for extension of time if Plaintiff failed to comply with
Local Rule 7's requirement that such motions shall
include a statement by moving counsel that “(1) he or
she has inquired of opposing counsel and there is agreement
or objection to the motion, or that (2) despite diligent
effort, he or she cannot ascertain opposing counsel's
position.” Local R Civ. P. 7(b); ECF No. 50.
Plaintiff then failed to file her response to
Defendants' motion to dismiss on September 14, 2015,
instead filing a third motion for extension of time,
nunc pro tunc, on September 24, 2015. ECF No. 52.
This motion requested an extension of time until October
10, 2015. Plaintiff then filed her response to
Defendants' motion to dismiss on October 19, 2015,
before the Court acted on her third motion for extension of
time. ECF No. 55.
On January 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension
of time, nunc pro tunc, until February 11, 2016 to
file a sur-reply to Defendants' reply, dated December
8, 2015, in response to Plaintiffs response to
Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 64. The Court
denied this motion on January 14, 2016, referring to its
previous order, ECF No. 50, which indicated that Plaintiff
shall not file additional motions nunc pro tunc
without ascertaining Defendants' counsel's position
regarding such motions. ECF No. 66. The Court also
indicated that Plaintiff “repeatedly has submitted
late filings and otherwise failed to comply with the rules
of this Court.” ECF No. 66.
The parties agreed that the initial discovery protocols
would apply to the case, but Plaintiff did not respond to
Defendants' requests by the May 9, 2016 due date.
See Notice, ECF No. 78. Defendants therefore
requested a telephonic discovery conference, which was
rescheduled several times until it took place on June 30,
2016. ECF No. 87. In the meantime, Plaintiff filed a motion
for extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to respond
to Defendants' request for admissions. ECF No. 82. The
Court granted the motion, allowing Plaintiff until June 10,
2016 to respond to Defendants' request for admissions.
ECF No. 84.
During the June 30, 2016 telephonic discovery conference,
the Court indicated that Plaintiff must, by July 15, 2016,
produce all materials responsive to all outstanding
discovery requests identified during the conference. ECF
No. 87. Following the conference, the Court issued an order
stating that, “given the repeated failure of
Plaintiff to comply with deadlines in this case or to meet
her discovery obligations, ” if Plaintiff failed to
produce any of the documents by July 15, 2016, such
documents “may not be used by Plaintiff in the
prosecution of this litigation.” ECF No. 88. On July
15, 2016, Plaintiff then filed a motion for extension of
time until August 31, 2016 to authenticate certain phone
records, which were among the documents that the Court
ordered must be produced by July 15, 2016. ECF No. 89.
Following the Plaintiffs failure to produce documents by
July 15, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Preclude on
July 20, 2016. ECF No. 91. Plaintiffs response to this
motion was due by August 10, 2016. Local R. Civ. P. 7(a).
On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for
extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to the
Defendants' motion to preclude. ECF No. 94. The Court
denied Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time on
September 2, 2016. ECF No. 96. The Court also denied
Defendants' motion to preclude without prejudice to
renewal at a later stage of the litigation. ECF No. 97.
On September 9, 2016, Defendants moved for an additional
discovery conference. ECF No. 98. The Court denied this
motion on September 19, 2016 because the history of this
case suggested that such a conference would be unfruitful.
ECF No. 88. Instead, the Court ordered that, as it had
“now been more than 60 days” since the July 15,
2016 deadline that the Court previously set for Plaintiffs
to produce documents, ECF No. 88, Plaintiff would be
precluded from using and relying on any documents that she
had failed to produce by September 19, 2016. ECF No. 99.
During a September 30, 2016 telephonic status conference to
discuss this order, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file
any response she should wish to file by October 7, 2016.
ECF No. 102. While Plaintiff filed her Motion for
Reconsideration on October 7, 2016, she omitted the vast
majority of the exhibits in support of the motion. ECF No.
When the Court then ordered Plaintiff to re-file her Motion
for Reconsideration with the missing exhibits, ECF No. 103,
by October 14, 2016, ECF No. 105, Plaintiff failed to do so
until October 26, 2016. ECF No. 106.
the Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and
otherwise comply with the orders of the Court, the Court
declines to consider Plaintiffs most recent nunc pro
tunc filing, ECF No. 108, and further orders that the
Court will no longer consider any future nunc pro
tunc or otherwise untimely filings by Plaintiff in this
case. The Supreme Court “has long recognized that a
district court possesses inherent powers that are
‘governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.'” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885,
1891 (2016). Plaintiff is therefore given notice that the
Court will not consider any future filing that does not
comply with the Court's deadlines. Plaintiff is reminded
that, to be timely, “all memoranda in opposition to any
motion shall be filed within twenty-one ...