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.

Hanna v. American Cruise Lines, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

December 12, 2019

RIMON HANNA, Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN CRUISE LINES, INC., & DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, Defendants.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

          CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Rimon Hanna, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendant American Cruise Lines, Inc. (“Defendant” or “ACL”). Doc. 24 (“Second Amended Complaint”). He alleges labor and employment claims related to his time as an executive chef for Defendant ACL, including “(1) wrongful termination, (2) unpaid overtime compensation in violation of Section 207 of the FLSA, (3) retaliation, (4) breach of contract, (5) intentional misrepresentation, and (6) negligent misrepresentation.” Hanna v. Am. Cruise Lines, Inc., No. 19-cv-74 (CSH), 2019 WL 3231202, at *7 (D. Conn. July 18, 2019).

         Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's “Requested Discovery, Set One.” Doc. 30. Defendant has filed Objections to Plaintiff's Motion. Doc. 31. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Motion.

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard for Motion to Compel

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, [or] production” if, inter alia, “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33” or “a party fails to produce documents . . . as requested under Rule 34.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). 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)(1).

         This District's Local Rules require more of the movant:

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.

D. Conn. Loc. R. 37(a) (emphasis added).[1]

         B. Analysis

         Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of the Federal or Local Rules because he did not discuss his discovery disputes with Defendant in detail or in good faith. In an analogous case, which Defendant references in its Brief, I previously addressed this question. I explained, with respect to Local Rule 37(a)'s mandates, in particular, that:

A certification from a movant that he has merely attempted to meet and confer with opposing counsel does not satisfy the requirements of the Local Rules. Rather, under Local Rule 37(a), a movant must confer with opposing counsel and must discuss discovery disputes in detail and in good faith. Courts in this District have also stated that the meet-and-confer requirement of our Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the parties to “meet, in person or by telephone.”

Doe v. Mastoloni, 307 F.R.D. 305, 313 (D. Conn. 2015) (quoting Brown v. Clayton, No. 11-cv-714 (HBF), 2013 WL 1409884, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2013)).

         Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Rule's requirements. Although Plaintiff and Defendant participated in a telephone call on October 11, 2019, to discuss Plaintiff's discovery requests, see Doc. 31-3, at 4-6, the Parties did not “discuss[] the discovery issues between them in detail, ” D. Conn. Loc. R. 37(a).[2] In actuality, the attachments to Defendant's Brief appear to demonstrate that the Parties barely discussed their discovery issues altogether-let alone “in detail”-because the Parties “did not address any specific request for production or admission, nor ...


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.