Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wade v. Churyk

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

February 13, 2018

DANIEL WADE AND SALLY WADE, Plaintiffs,
v.
BORIS CHURYK, Defendant.

          RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL

          Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiffs, Daniel Wade and Sally Wade, bring this lawsuit against their former neighbor, defendant Boris Churyk, alleging claims of emotional distress and nuisance. Pending before the court is defendant's motion to compel (doc. #52). For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

         I. Background

         According to the complaint, plaintiffs and defendant were neighbors in East Lyme, Connecticut (Compl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiffs allege that on February 20, 2012, defendant fired a gunshot through the window of their home while they were inside, as a result of which he was arrested and charged with criminal mischief in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree. Plaintiffs allege further that after serving a period of probation, defendant obtained dismissal of these criminal charges through the accelerated rehabilitation program. (Compl. ¶¶5-6.) Plaintiffs maintain that following defendant's arrest and continuing through the summer of 2014 (when plaintiffs moved away), defendant subjected the plaintiffs to “terrorism and harassment of many kinds.” (Compl. ¶7.)

         II. Discussion

          Discovery in this case has been unnecessarily protracted, time-consuming, complicated, and contentious.

         I held a status/discovery conference on May 11, 2017, after Judge Chatigny denied defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. #39). After the conference, I issued a memorandum of conference (doc. #43), stating in pertinent part:

Despite the close of discovery nearly a year ago on June 1, 2016, defendant's counsel stated that certain discovery issues remain. Counsel must confer in a good faith effort to eliminate or reduce any areas of controversy and arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution. In the event the consultations of counsel do not fully resolve the outstanding discovery issues, either may file a motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 37 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure by no later than June 12, 2017.
There have been no settlement discussions. Plaintiffs are ordered to make a meaningful settlement demand to defendant by no later than May 25, 2017. The parties also must submit a joint report to Judge Martinez's chambers by June 2, 2017, addressing the status of discovery and efforts to resolve the case.

(Doc. #42 at 1-2.) Counsel filed a joint status report on May 31, 2017. They did not comply with the order to meet and confer regarding outstanding discovery and/or to file a motion to compel if necessary.[1] I held another conference on June 29, 2017, and entered another order and memorandum of conference (doc. #51):

Despite the close of discovery over a year ago on June I, 2016, defendant's counsel stated that certain discovery issues remain. Counsel must confer in a good faith effort to eliminate or reduce any areas of controversy and arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution. In the event the consultations of counsel do not fully resolve the outstanding discovery issues, any motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 37 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed by no later than July 19, 2017.
If no motion to compel is filed, the parties' joint trial memorandum shall be due on August 2, 2017.
This is the second order the court has entered regarding these issues. (See Memorandum of Conference, May II, 2017 (doc. no. 43)). The parties failed to comply with the orders set forth therein, with the exception of the order requiring a joint status report by June 2, 2017. The parties should not expect any further consideration from the court regarding these issues.

(Doc. #51 at 1-2.) On July 11, 2017 defendant filed a motion to compel, seeking a dismissal of plaintiff Daniel Wade's claims for failure to comply with discovery rules and requesting an order to compel Sally Wade to produce certain “documents/records.” (Doc. #52 at 1-2.) Defendant states that plaintiff Daniel Wade's deposition was halted after only a few minutes because he became upset and “uncontrollably emotional, ” creating a disturbance in counsel's office. (Doc. #52 at 7.) Defendant also says that plaintiff Sally Wade's deposition was suspended so that counsel could discuss defendant's request for additional medical records, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.