United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER ON MOTIONS
KARI
A. DOOLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Preliminary
Statement
Plaintiff,
Jean Karlo Conquistador (“Conquistador”),
currently confined at Bridgeport Correctional Center in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, filed this complaint pro se
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendant, Lieutenant
Adamaitis. Conquistador asserts claims of deliberate
indifference to safety, failure to protect him from harm, and
retaliation.
On
October 24, 2019, the Court entered orders denying, inter
alia, Conquistador's motions to compel and for status
conference. Doc. Nos.64, 66. The same day, Conquistador filed
another motion to compel. He has also since filed another
motion for status conference; a motion for permission to
serve additional discovery requests on the defendant, and a
motion to serve discovery requests on a non-party. Finally,
Conquistador seeks an extension of time to file an amended
complaint.
Motion
for Status Conference [ECF 73]
In the
order denying Conquistador's previous motion for status
conference, the Court determined that a status conference was
not necessary at that time and stated that the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure are adequate to address any discovery
issues that may arise. Doc. No. 63. In this motion, filed
four days after the Court's Order, Conquistador again
asserts that there are discovery disputes which require a
conference. The court disagrees. The motion for status
conference is denied, again.
Motion
to Compel
In the
order denying Conquistador's prior motion to compel, the
court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)
requires the parties to confer in good faith to resolve
discovery disputes before seeking court involvement. The
court denied the motion because Conquistador failed to
provide a certification that he had conferred with
defendant's counsel in good faith. Doc. No. 66.
In his
current motion, Conquistador argues that he did confer in
good faith because he spoke to counsel before filing his
discovery requests seeking permission to serve a second set
of requests on the defendant. Counsel stated that he would
object to the requests. Doc. No. 70. However, this
conversation has little bearing on the dispute regarding the
Defendant's answers to previously served discovery, which
appear to be the subject of the motion to compel. An
intention to object to future discovery is not a meet and
confer on outstanding discovery. The parties must confer
regarding the objections made or the adequacy of the answers
provided and they must attempt to resolve or clarify
outstanding issues. See Acosta v. Puccio, No.
3:18-cv-532(MPS), 2019 WL 2098317, at *3 (D. Conn. May 14,
2019) (before involving the court, the parties are required
to confer and make “a good faith effort to eliminate or
reduce the area of controversy”); Ruffino v.
Faucher, No. 3:11-cv-297(VLB), 2012 WL 3637636, at *2
(D. Conn. Aug. 22, 2012) (denying motion to compel because,
in response to objections to discovery request, prisoner
failed to narrow the requests in time or scope, or adequately
respond to defendants' objection that release of
information would jeopardize institutional safety and
security). As Conquistador has not conferred with counsel in
good faith to resolve the discovery dispute at issue in his
motion to compel, the motion is denied.
Motion
to Serve Additional Discovery Requests on Defendant [ECF
74]
Conquistador
seeks leave to serve additional discovery requests on the
defendant. Although Conquistador titles his motion as seeking
leave to serve a second set of discovery requests, the court
notes that Conquistador has already served two sets of
interrogatories and requests for production in addition to
requests for admission on the defendant. The defendant has
objected to many of the second set of interrogatories on the
ground that Conquistador has served more than the 25
interrogatories, including discrete subparts, permitted under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1).
Conquistador
does not attach proposed discovery requests or indicate what
additional information he seeks. Thus, the court cannot
determine whether additional discovery requests should be
permitted. Conquistador's motion is denied without
prejudice to refiling with the necessary information or
attachments.
Motion
to Serve Discovery Requests on Non-Party [ECF 76]
Conquistador
seeks leave of court to serve discovery requests on a
non-party. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that
requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for
admission may be served only on parties. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33 (interrogatories), 34(a) (requests for
production), 36(a)(1) (requests for admission). As service ...