UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randal C. Fritz

v. Civil No. 06-cv-469-PB

Kenneth Brown

Katharine Daly

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to compel production of certain documents. 

Defendants object.

Background

This case is an outgrowth of a prior suit by plaintiff. 

Judge Barbadoro has made it clear in this case that “(t)he issue

is, when they fired (plaintiff), did they do it because of the

(prior) lawsuit, which I said would be improper, or did they do

it because of his conduct before the lawsuit ...” (Transcript

Dkt. 41, p. 11). He ordered defendants to produce what was

relevant and ordered plaintiff to avoid discovery “fishing

expeditions.”

Despite the fact that discovery closed on September 1, 2008,

plaintiff waited until November 10, 2008, only fourteen days

before a final pretrial, to file the motion to compel.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 81 Filed 02/18/09 Page 1 of 4
2

Orders

The document demands are considered in order.

1. Salaam v. USNH claim file

A request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 for this file was not

made during the discovery period although a letter request was

made. Despite the fact that plaintiff, contrary to state law,

copied this file and took it home, plaintiff now wants a copy

produced to see if the original file is identical to the file he

improperly copied and took out of the agency. First, he claims

Ms. Daly denied the existence of two of the seven hundred plus

pages which he copied. It is clear that the portion of Ms.

Daly’s deposition relied upon by plaintiff to establish that

position does not support plaintiff’s claim. 

Second, the file was not the subject of a timely Rule 34

request.

Third, plaintiff has not identified what the potential

exhibits are that are relevant and which he “is entitled to have

... Bates stamped ...” Calling the file demonstrative evidence

is not a showing of relevance. In fact, plaintiff has not

demonstrated the relevance of the file. The motion is denied as

to the file.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 81 Filed 02/18/09 Page 2 of 4
3

2. Daly Annual Review

Plaintiff wholly failed to demonstrate the relevance of the

review. The motion is denied as to it.

3. Mediation Surveys

Apparently plaintiff’s counsel didn’t listen to Judge

Barbadoro and has ignored Rule 26 since he has made no attempt to

show the relevance of these surveys. The motion is denied as to

them.

4. Additional Comparable Writings

Plaintiff has failed to provide any information which would

permit me to determine (1) what he seeks, (2) that it has not

been provided, and/or (3) that it is relevant. The motion is

denied as to “the writings.”

The motion disregards the requirements of the Federal Rules

and Judge Barbadoro’s express requirements for discovery. It is

frivolous. Defendants appear to be entitled to their fees under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). Defendants are ordered to provide a

detailed statement of fees related to their objection to

Plaintiff’s counsel within ten (10) days. Within ten (10) days

thereafter, Plaintiff shall pay those fees or seek a hearing to

show cause why they should not be assessed the fees.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 81 Filed 02/18/09 Page 3 of 4
4

The motion to compel (document no. 70) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 18, 2009

cc: Pierre C. Rumpf, Esq.

 Paula J. Werme, Esq.

 Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 81 Filed 02/18/09 Page 4 of 4