From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Velasco v. Halpin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Jun 11, 2012
Case No. 3:11-cv-463(AVC) (D. Conn. Jun. 11, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 3:11-cv-463(AVC)

06-11-2012

VICTOR JOSE VELASCO, Plaintiff, v. HALPIN, et al., Defendants


RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. #27]

The plaintiff, Victor Velasco, challenges disciplinary procedures and his classification as a security risk group safety threat member in this civil rights action.

The plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the court's assistance in obtaining requested discovery and the court construes the motion as a motion to compel. The plaintiff states that the defendants have objected to many of his discovery requests for various reasons and submitted redacted copies of some requested documents.

Rule 37, D. Conn. L. Civ. R., requires that, before filing a motion to compel, the moving party must confer with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. The purpose of this rule is to encourage the parties to resolve discovery disputes without court intervention. See Hanton v. Price, No. 3:04cv473(CFD), 2006 WL 581204, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 8, 2006). If discussions are not successful, the party moving to compel must submit an affidavit certifying the attempted resolution and specifying which issues were resolved and which remain. The plaintiff does not indicate that he made any attempt to resolve this matter with defendants' counsel and has not attached the required affidavit.

In addition, Rule 37(b)1 requires that any discovery motion be accompanied by a memorandum of law "contain[ing] 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." Copies of the discovery requests must be included as exhibits. The plaintiff neither attaches copies of his discovery requests nor lists the items sought.

Because the plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of Local Rule 37, the motion to compel [Doc. #27] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 11th day of June 2012, at Hartford, Connecticut.

_________________________

Thomas P. Smith

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Velasco v. Halpin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Jun 11, 2012
Case No. 3:11-cv-463(AVC) (D. Conn. Jun. 11, 2012)
Case details for

Velasco v. Halpin

Case Details

Full title:VICTOR JOSE VELASCO, Plaintiff, v. HALPIN, et al., Defendants

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Date published: Jun 11, 2012

Citations

Case No. 3:11-cv-463(AVC) (D. Conn. Jun. 11, 2012)