Order | Filed: October 01, 2026
| Entered: October 01, 2026
Medico v. Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. et al
370 Other Fraud | Connecticut
Order
ORDER granting 169 , 170 , 174 , 175 , 179 , 189 , 196 Motions for Security for Costs. In the wake of the Court's Order granting Defendant Marc Fitch's motion for security for costs, ECF No. 167, several other Defendants in this matter have filed similar motions. As the Court noted in its Order at ECF No. 167, Local Rule 83.3 provides that "[a]ny time after the commencement of an action, the defendants... are entitled on request to the Clerk to an order to be entered by the Clerk, as of course, for a cash deposit or bond with recognized corporate surety in the sum of $500.00 as security for costs, to be given within thirty days from the entry of such order." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.3(a). Upon good cause shown, however, the Court may modify or waive the requirements of Local Rule 83.3. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.3(b).
Plaintiff opposes the instant motions, asserting that the Court should deny the request for security for costs or otherwise waive, reduce, or modify the bond requirement. See ECF Nos. 193 , 194 , 206 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 231 .
As the Court has previously described, courts in this district consistently enforce Local Rule 83.3's requirement except where the plaintiff has a demonstrated inability to pay. see ECF No. 167 (citing, e.g., Brown v. Tuttle, No. 3:13-CV-1444 (VAB), 2016 WL 471246, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 5, 2016) and Antar v. Grossman, 3:23-CV-1337-MPS at ECF No. 488 (D. Conn. Mar. 16, 2024)). The Court also previously acknowledged that "a plaintiff who may be capable of posting bond with respect to one defendant may be incapable of posting it with respect to several." ECF No. 167. But Plaintiff has not asserted that she would be unable to post bond with respect to all Defendants who have now requested it. Rather, Plaintiff argues that she suffers financial hardship, owes several thousand dollars in student-loan debt, and "has borne the costs of this litigation... from her own limited resources." E.g. , ECF No. 193 at 5. Plaintiff does not assert that she cannot pay; rather, she argues that requiring her to post security, without requiring her "well-resourced adversar[ies]" to make a "showing of need," would burden her as a pro se litigant. See, e.g. ECF No. 231 at 7. As the Court has previously described, assertions of general financial hardship do not constitute a "demonstrated inability to pay." ECF No. 167.
Plaintiff's other arguments do not change this result. Plaintiff argues that her claims are "asserted in good faith," see, e.g. , ECF No.
Motion | Filed: September 30, 2026
| Entered: September 30, 2026
Medico v. Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. et al
370 Other Fraud | Connecticut
Motion
MOTION for Security for Costs by Kimberly Donohue. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ag) (Entered: 09/30/2026)