Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 49 Filed O3/O4/2004 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'I%. I Lt E D
DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC T . _ =
lima Ll E5 as ill ”llLl
Clifton S. FREEDMAN, ; U _, W Q. U, I CT , Gm,.
Plaimifi ¤ it Ea iw ui.··.# il a. ce ri s.
-vs— : Civil No. 3:03cvl048 (PCD)
AMERICA ONLINE, INC., the TOWN
of FAIRFIELD, and Detectives :
William YOUNG and David : E
BENSEY (individually and in their :
official capacities) : ;
Defendants. :
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL l
]
Plaintiff moves to compel depositions. For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff’ s
]
motion [Doc. No. lil] is granted.
Discovery in this case closes on March 31, 2004. By agreement ofthe parties, the
depositions of Defendant William Young and a designated representative of the Fairfield Police
Department were scheduled for March 4, 2004. On February 25, 2004, Defendants filed a notice I
of appeal [Doc. No. 46], pursuant to which Defendants Young and Bensey are appealing this
Court’s recent summary judgment ruling [Doc. No. 45].* *
Plaintiff argues that because the Court’s Ruling granting summary judgment in part is an -
interlocutory order, Defendants should have complied with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § I
l292(b), which governs appeal interlocutory orders.: Defendants note that they are not seeking
1 Defendants apparently are appealing the portion of the Ruling granting Plaintiff’ s motion for
summary judgment as to Defendants Young and Bensey. g
2 It is not necessary at this time to resolve Plaintiff" s contention about Defendants’ method of
appeal. While 28 U.S.C. § 1291 gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction to review district courts’ '
final decisions, the February 4, 2004 Ruling granting summary judgment in part was not a final » ‘
order, for it addressed only the issue of liability under the ECPA and did not fully adjudicate the :
claims in the case. See EEOC v. Joint Apprenticeship Comm. of Joint Indus. Bd. of Elec. Ind, 895 i
a
( i
l
l

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 49 Filed O3/O4/2004 Page 2 of 2
N
N
to stay discovery pending their appeal, but rather that because of scheduling conflicts they cannot .
proceed with the depositions scheduled for March 4, 2004. They provide no explanation as to
N
N
why they did not give earlier notice. They represent that the parties should be available to N
N
complete the depositions within the upcoming week.
N
Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery is granted. Defendants shall produce Defendant
Young and the duly designated representative of the Town of Fairfield Police Department for N
depositions as scheduled, on March 4, 2004. Q
SO ORDERED.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, Marchql, 2004. A
N N
, . .. . §
Peter C. Dorsey 2 N
United States District Judge N
N
N
x?
1=.2d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 1990) (citing Liberty Maz. ms. Ca. V. Wezzet, 424 U.s. 737, 744, 47 L. Ed. 2d
435, 96 S. Ct. 1202 (1976) (partial summary judgments "are by their terms interlocutory. . . and
where assessment of damages or awarding of other relief remains to be resolved [they] have never ‘
been considered to be ‘final’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 "). Moreover, there is
nothing to indicate that this Court is ousted of jurisdiction to rule on discovery matters.
N
2 N
N
N
I