Davie v. Norwalk et al
ORDER granting 41 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 7/30/09. (Larsen, M.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CAROLYN DAVIE V. CITY OF NORWALK OFFICER RAY DeCAMILLO,in his individual and official capacity, and CHIEF HARRY RILLING, in his individual and official capacity : : : : : : : : : : :
ORDER Pending is Defendants' Motion to Compel [Doc. #41]. The Court heard oral argument on July 9, 2009. After careful
consideration, Defendant's Motion to Comepl [Doc. #41] is GRANTED. Standard of Review Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the scope and limitations of permissible discovery. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any
matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(1). Information that
is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is considered relevant for the purposes of discovery. See Daval Steel Prods. V. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357, 1367
(2d Cir. 1991); Morse/Diesel, Inc. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 122 F.R.D. 447, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Discussion The first set of interrogatories asks the plaintiff to specifically identify the policies, practices and customs that she alleges were violated and/or should have been adhered to and/or which lead to the injuries she alleges she sustained. Defendants have provided plaintiff with hundreds of pages of documents and have invited plaintiff's counsel to come to the Norwalk Police Department and review all documents regarding its policies, practices and training manuals. The plaintiff concedes
that she has not identified an actual policy of the City of Norwalk which was violated in this matter and stated at oral argument that she does not believe such a policy exists. If
possible, plaintiff is to state specifically how the police department failed to train and discipline Officer DeCamillo; alternatively she will state in writing that she is not able to specify any further. The first set of interrogatories also inquires how the claim of emotional distress has manifested itself. Plaintiff is
directed to provide specific examples of how the incident with Officer DeCamillo affected her, if she has them. Defendants also seek the medical records of Dr. Roth. Plaintiff responds that she was advised that Dr. Roth does not
Subsequently, defendants requested that The
plaintiff provide a medical release for Dr. Roth's records.
plaintiff is directed to execute a medical release for Dr. Roth and any responsive medical records sought by defendant, including any calendars or appointment books, to be produced to the Court for an in camera review. Defendant's Motion to Compel [Doc. #41] is GRANTED. This is not a recommended ruling. This is a discovery
ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly erroneous" statutory standard of review. 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges. As such, it
is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the district judge upon motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 30th day of July 2009.
___/s/______________ HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?