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.

Ojo v. Hillsborough County Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

May 7, 2014

Osahenrumwen Ojo,
v.
Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, Kristin Balles, David Mercer, Brian Turcotte, Jason Barbera, Todd Gordon, and Marc Cusson.

ORDER

STEVEN J. McAULIFFE, District Judge.

Before the court are the following matters[1]:

• plaintiff Ojo's motion to compel discovery (doc. no. 57), defendants' response to that motion (doc. no. 60), and a status report on that motion filed by defendants (doc. no. 70);
• defendants' motion for a protective order (doc. no. 67), to which plaintiff has not responded;
• Ojo's motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 51), Ojo's supplemental affidavit (doc. no. 61), and defendants' objection to the motion (doc. no. 56);
• defendants' motion for leave to file supplemental affidavits (doc. no. 63), to which plaintiff has not responded; and
• defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 81), an affidavit filed in support of that motion (doc. no. 83), and Ojo's objection to that motion (doc. no. 84).

Discussion

I. Discovery Motions (Doc. Nos. 57 and 67)

A. Standard

A party may obtain discovery of nonprivileged information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The party moving to compel discovery bears the burden of showing that the information is relevant. See Caouette v. OfficeMax, Inc. , 352 F.Supp.2d 134, 136 (D.N.H. 2005). The party asserting a privilege bears the burden of establishing that the privilege is applicable and has not been waived. See Lluberes v. Uncommon Prods., LLC , 663 F.3d 6, 24 (1st Cir. 2011).

B. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 57)

In October 2013, Ojo moved to compel supervisory defendant Cusson's and Gordon's answers to interrogatories and document production requests. See Document No. 57. Ojo did not attach the pertinent discovery requests to his motion. This court, on December 2, 2013 (doc. no. 63), gave the parties an opportunity to resolve the issues relating to those discovery requests without court involvement. The last word that this court received from either party concerning the motion to compel was defense counsel Attorney Curran's February 18, 2014 statement that the parties had "discussed the topic of outstanding interrogatory and other discovery issues, to be resolved by ongoing agreement." Defs. Supp. to and Notice re: Pending Mot. to Compel Plfs. Disc. Depo. (Doc. No. 79).

This court denies plaintiff's motion to compel, without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew the motion if he files a copy of the relevant discovery requests and/or responses as an exhibit to the motion, and certifies that he has conferred or attempted to confer with Attorney Curran in good faith ...


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.