United States District Court, D. Connecticut
CHARLES C. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
HARTFORD, et al. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO COMPEL (#s 47)
AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (# 59)
Kari
A. Dooley United States District Judge
Statement
of the Case
On
December 18, 2017, the plaintiff, Charles C. Williams, a
prisoner in the custody of the Connecticut Department of
Correction (“DOC”), filed a complaint pro
se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city of
Hartford, Hartford Police Detective Cheryl Gogins, and DOC
Correction Officer Nancy Quiros. Compl. (DE#1). He filed an
amended complaint on July 9, 2018. After initial review, the
Court, Thompson, J., permitted the case to proceed
against Gogins and Quiros but dismissed the claim against the
City of Hartford.
On
November 5, 2018, the plaintiff filed the instant motion to
compel discovery against the remaining two defendants. The
discovery at issue consists of twenty-three requests for
admissions and twenty-nine requests for the production of
documents/interrogatories addressed to Gogins; see
Notice to Court (DE#35); and twenty-eight requests for
admissions and twenty-nine requests for the production of
documents/interrogatories addressed to Quiros. See
Notice to Court (DE#36). He filed both discovery requests
with the Court on September 14, 2018. Defendant Gogins filed
an objection to the motion on November 26, 2018, arguing that
(1) insofar as the plaintiff has not filed the signed waiver
of service, his ability to conduct discovery has not
commenced; (2) the discovery was never served, only filed;
(3) the discovery was filed before she had appeared; and (4)
the plaintiff never attempted to confer with counsel in good
faith regarding the discovery requests. Defendant Quiros has
not filed a response to the motion to compel.
The
plaintiff filed a reply to the defendant Gogins on December
17, 2018 in which he points out that the Court ordered the
U.S. Marshals to serve Gogins with a summons and a copy of
the amended complaint because of his in forma
pauperis status, and Gogins has responded to the amended
complaint with a motion to dismiss. With respect to service
of the discovery requests, the plaintiff contends that he
properly mailed the requests directly to the defendants on
September 10, 2018 and that he has made several phone calls
and sent a letter to defense counsel, but defense counsel has
not been receptive to his requests.
In
addition to his reply, the plaintiff also filed a motion for
sanctions against Quiros for retaliating against him by
reclassifying his prisoner status and placing him in a sexual
offender treatment program. For the reasons set forth below,
both motions are DENIED.
Discussion
The
defendant's procedural arguments are well placed and
appear equally applicable to both motions. The motion to
compel is therefore DENIED.
However,
in an effort to progress the litigation towards an
adjudication on the merits, the Court enters the following
Orders.
The
plaintiff shall file the signed Waiver of Service on or
before January 15, 2019.
Although
the parties disagree as to whether the discovery was sent
and/or received, the Court notes that the discovery was filed
by the plaintiff and is therefore available to the
defendants. Rather than order the plaintiff to re-send the
discovery, the Court directs the defendants to access the
discovery at ECF #35 and #36. The defendants are further
ordered to respond and/or object to the discovery on or
before February 15, 2019. Thereafter, if disputes regarding
the discovery persist, the parties are directed to comply
with Rule 37 and Local Rule 37 in an effort to resolve those
disputes.[1]
Under
Rule 37, “a party may move for an order compelling
disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without
court action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). The movant must
first confer with opposing counsel in person or via telephone
and discuss the discovery issues between them in order to
arrive at a “mutually satisfactory resolution.”
Local Rule 37(a). In the event a resolution is not reached,
the movant must attach an affidavit certifying that, despite
a good faith effort, he was unable to resolve the discovery
issue with opposing counsel. Id.
Local
Rule 37(b) also requires that memoranda be filed by both
sides before any discovery motion is heard by the Court.
“Each memorandum shall contain a concise statement of
the nature of the case and a specific verbatim listing of
each of the items of discovery sought or opposed, and
immediately following each specification shall set forth the
reason why the item should be allowed or disallowed.”
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(b)(1). The movant must attach to his
memorandum, as exhibits, copies of the discovery requests in
dispute. Id. The plaintiff did not comply with the
requirements of Rule 37 or Local Rule 37 prior to filing this
motion to compel. Had he done so, he would have learned that
the discovery was not received and he would have also been in
a position to correct the deficiency arising out of his
failure to file the signed Waiver of Service.
Finally,
with respect to the motion for sanctions against Quiros, it
is clear to the court that the plaintiff's motion is
based on conduct outside the scope of this litigation. As
such, the plaintiff's ...