United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT
DEADLINES AND TO SCHEDULE A STATUS CONFERENCE
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Anthony Nwachukwu brings this action against Defendant
Liberty Bank, alleging that it discriminated against him
because of his race and national origin, in violation of 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982. Plaintiff moves for a
protective order that would preclude him from answering
certain interrogatory questions and producing certain
documents. Doc. 78. Parties also jointly move to request one
hundred and twenty (120) days to modify the scheduling order
to allow completion of discovery and also seek a telephone
status conference to discuss discovery issues. Doc. 79. This
Court will address each of these motions in turn.
A.
Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order
Plaintiff's
motion for a protective order is made pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(A) and (C), on the theory that
answering certain interrogatory questions and requests for
production from the Plaintiff "would cause undue
annoyance, oppression, and an undue burden on the Plaintiff
for information that is largely irrelevant to this lawsuit,
and will not lead to any relevant
information."[1]Doc. 78. The Court denies Plaintiff's
motion as it is not in accordance with the Federal Rules or
the Local Rules.
The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that "a party or
any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a
protective order . . . . The motion must include a
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort
to resolve the dispute without court action."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).
Because
Plaintiff invokes Rule 26, he must also comply with two
provisions set forth in Local Rule 37:
(a) No. motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed.R.Civ.P.
shall be filed unless counsel making the motion has
conferred, in person or by telephone, 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. In the event the consultations of counsel do not
fully resolve the discovery issues, counsel making a
discovery motion shall file with the Court, as a part of the
motion papers, an affidavit certifying that he or she has
conferred with counsel for the opposing party in an effort in
good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the
motion without the intervention of the Court, and has been
unable to reach such an agreement. If some of the issues
raised by the motion have been resolved by agreement, the
affidavit shall specify the issues so resolved and the issues
remaining unresolved.
(b)(1) Memoranda by both sides shall be filed with the Clerk
in accordance with Rule 7(a)1 of these Local Rules 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. Where several different items of
discovery are in dispute, counsel shall, to the extent
possible, group the items into categories in lieu of an
individual listing of each item. Every memorandum shall
include, as exhibits, copies of the discovery requests in
dispute.
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(a) and (b)(1).
Plaintiff's
motion does not mention any good faith efforts to resolve the
discovery issues to which his motion pertains, let alone an
affidavit certifying such an effort was made. He also claims
that a memorandum of law is unneeded "since the issue
with respect to the Motion for a Protective Order is
factual." Doc. 78 at 1 n.1. The Court disagrees that
there are no issues of law. A supporting memorandum for
Plaintiff's motion should at least put forth the standard
of review for granting a protective order and present cases
that support Plaintiff's position that Defendant's
discovery requests are annoying, embarrassing, oppressive, or
would cause Plaintiff undue burden or expensive. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). With respect to presenting the
issues of fact, Plaintiff's motion is lacking as well. He
does not include as an exhibit "copies of the discovery
requests in dispute." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(b)(1).
Without knowing exactly what the disputed discovery requests
entail, the Court is unable to evaluate the merits of
Plaintiff's motion. For these reasons, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's motion for a protective order.
B.
Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines
and to Schedule a Status Conference
Parties
have had numerous discovery disputes in this action.
See Docs. 37, 54, 59, 70, 78. They remain in the
initial stages of discovery due to litigating these disputes.
Consequently, parties have missed the original deadline to
complete fact discovery, October 27, 2017, by many months.
See Doc. 50. It is apparent to the Court that the
scheduling order in place is in need of amendment and that
the parties would likely benefit from their requested status
conference. Accordingly, the Court imposes a STAY on
discovery and all deadlines in this case and GRANTS the
parties' joint motion for a status conference. The Court
will determine a deadline for parties to submit an updated
Report of Parties' Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting after the
status conference and then lift the stay once the Court
issues a new scheduling order.
To
schedule said status conference, the parties are directed to
confer with one another and jointly submit the ...