Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Owens v. Fitzgerald, 3:17cv657 (RNC). (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Connecticut Number: infdco20190627947 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER AND NOTICE DONNA F. MARTINEZ , Magistrate Judge . The court's docket reflects various filings by the parties regarding the pro se plaintiff's interrogatories. These filings include: Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Interrogatory Responses (doc. #69); Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Interrogatory Responses (doc. #70); Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Interrogatory Responses (doc. #72); Defendant's Ob
More

ORDER AND NOTICE

The court's docket reflects various filings by the parties regarding the pro se plaintiff's interrogatories. These filings include: Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Interrogatory Responses (doc. #69); Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Interrogatory Responses (doc. #70); Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Interrogatory Responses (doc. #72); Defendant's Objection to Interrogatories (doc. #77); Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Request for Discovery (doc. #79); and Plaintiff's Objection and Response to Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Interrogatories (doc. #81).

As a preliminary matter, it is not clear what interrogatories are at issue. The court previously denied the plaintiff's request to serve additional interrogatories beyond the limit of 25 set forth in Rule 33. (Doc. #65.) Defendant indicates that he has already responded to this number and that the plaintiff has impermissibly propounded additional interrogatories. See doc. #70, 77.

Second, requests for relief must be made by way of a motion, such as a motion to compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 or a motion for protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. "A request for a court order must be made by motion." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Filings titled as "Objections" containing requests for relief, as was done here, do not comply with the required procedure. A party opposing a motion may file an opposition to the motion and the party who filed the motion may then file a reply. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit an endless cycle of responses and objections.

Third, motions to compel must comply with rule 37 of the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure and include, among other things, a copy of the discovery requests in dispute and the opposing party's response/objection to the request that is at issue. See D. Conn L. Civ. P. 37.

The court will take no action as to these filings. Any renewed request for a court order must be made by way of an appropriate motion that complies with the relevant rule of civil procedure.

The court strongly encourages the parties to meet and confer pursuant to D. Conn. L. R. Civ. 37 to resolve any further discovery disputes that may arise without judicial intervention.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer