Alston v. Pafumi et al
Filing
91
RULING (see attached) denying as moot 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw; granting in part 61 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time; granting 64 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel responses to the October 25, 2010 discovery requests; denying 75 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel responses to his June 2010 correspondence; granting 76 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss all claims against Defendant Darryl Little, which are hereby dismissed with prejudice; denying 78 Plaintiff& #039;s Motion to Set Aside Order; denying 83 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time; denying as moot 84 Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Relief; granting in part 88 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall res pond to the October 25, 2010 and December 25, 2010 Requests for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of this order, which is on or before June 17, 2011. Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed within sixty (60) days of this order, which is on or before July 18, 2011. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on May 18, 2011. (Lacedonia, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
IRA ALSTON
v.
CASE NO.
3:09CV1978 (CSH)
MICHAEL PAFUMI, ET AL.
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
Pending before the court is a motion to withdraw, a motion for extension of time, two
motions to compel, a motion for voluntary dismissal, a motion to set aside an order, an objection
to an order and a motion for emergency relief filed by the plaintiff and two motions for extension
of time filed by the defendants. The relevant prior orders in the case were entered by Magistrate
Judge Margolis, to whom a reference was made.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion to withdraw, the motion for voluntary
dismissal and the motion to compel are granted. The motion for extension of scheduling
deadlines and defendants’ second motion for extension of time are granted in part. The renewed
motion to compel, the motion to set aside an order, the motion for emergency relief and
defendants’ first motion for extension of time are denied. The objection is overruled.
I.
Motion to Withdraw [Doc. No. 60]
The plaintiff seeks to withdraw the motion to stay rulings that he filed on November 1,
2010. As the court has already ruled on the motion to stay, the motion to withdraw is denied as
moot.
II.
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [Doc. No. 76]
The plaintiff seeks to voluntarily dismiss all claims in the amended complaint against
defendant Captain Darryl Little. The defendants have no objection to the motion. The motion
for voluntary dismissal of all claims against defendant Little is granted. Pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all claims against defendant Darryl Little are
dismissed with prejudice.
III.
Renewed Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 75]
The plaintiff asserts that on June 23, 2010, he sent correspondence to counsel for the
defendants seeking eight different types of documents. He claims that counsel has not responded
to this correspondence. On December 23, 2010, the plaintiff sent a letter to counsel for the
defendants in an attempt to resolve this alleged discovery dispute. The plaintiff claims that
counsel did not respond to his letter. The plaintiff seeks to compel counsel for the defendants to
respond to his June 2010 correspondence seeking certain documents.
The plaintiff’s memorandum in support of the motion to compel describes the first
three requests for documents contained in the June 2010 letter to counsel for the defendants as
follows: Request No. 1 - the plaintiff’s entire master file; Request No. 2 - the plaintiff’s entire
inmate Northern Facility file; and Request No. 3 the plaintiff’s entire medical file. The plaintiff
states that he does not have a copy of the original June 2010 letter to counsel and cannot recollect
what specific documents were included in Requests Nos. 4-8.
In the letter to counsel dated in December 2010, the plaintiff states that he considers
each of the eight requests reasonable. He describes requests ## 1-3 as including documentation
in his master, classification, disciplinary and medical files. The plaintiff concedes that in
October 2010, he received some of the documents from all four of these files from the attorney
2
who represents him in another case against the Department of Correction. The plaintiff then reframes his document requests as follows: (1) Incident Reports from his Master File including
those reports dated November 23, 2009, January 27-February 1, 2010, April 23-26, 2010, August
10-12, 2010, November 6-9, 2010, November 26-December 2, 2010; (2) Classification records
after July 2010; (3) Disciplinary records after January 1, 2008; and (4) Medical records after
March 2010. The plaintiff also asks for the documents responsive to requests ## 4-8, but does
not describe these requests.
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party may serve on
any other party a request . . . to produce . . . the following items in the responding party’s
possession, custody, or control: (A) any designated documents . . . or (B) any designated tangible
things. . . .” Rule 34(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. The plaintiff concedes that he did not serve a request
for production of documents on a party to this action, but rather sent correspondence to counsel
for the defendants seeking certain documents. As such, this June 2010 correspondence does not
comply with Rule 34(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Even if it did, the letter sent to counsel for the defendants on December 23, 2010,
which the plaintiff describes as his attempt to resolve the discovery dispute related to the June
2010 request for documents, is really an amended request for documents. The request, however,
is not addressed to a party to this action. Furthermore, the court fails to see how the incident,
disciplinary or classification reports or medical records sought in the first three requests of the
December 23, 2010 letter are relevant to the litigation of this case. The claims in the amended
complaint pertain to incidents that occurred in October and November 2009. Other than an
incident report relating to the plaintiff’s November 23, 2009 in-cell restraint placement and
disciplinary reports issued to the plaintiff relating to the incidents in October and November
3
2009, the plaintiff seeks documents created in 2010. The plaintiff simply states that the
documents are necessary “for preparation of litigation.” The court concludes that this is an
insufficient justification for the production of these documents by the defendants.
For all of the reasons above, the court denies the plaintiff’s motion to compel the
defendants to respond to the June 2010 correspondence addressed to counsel for the defendants.
IV.
Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 64]
Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 83]
The plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to respond to his October 25, 2010
request for production of documents. He claims that the defendants have never responded to this
request. He attaches a letter mailed to counsel for the defendants on December 6, 2010
addressing the unanswered document request. This letter constitutes the plaintiff’s attempt to
confer with counsel in an effort to resolve this discovery dispute. Counsel did not respond to the
plaintiff’s December 6, 2010 letter. Counsel has filed a memorandum in opposition to the
motion to compel and a second motion for extension of time to respond to the August 2010
request for production of documents.
In her opposition to the motion to compel, counsel indicated that she is still preparing
responses to the October 25, 2010 document request. Counsel also informed the court that the
plaintiff was scheduled to participate in a settlement conference on January 18, 2011 in
connection with another case, Alston v. Cahill, et al., Case No. 3:07cv473(RNC), and that the
settlement conference might also encompass this case and/or issues of discovery in this case. It
is apparent from reviewing the docket sheet in Alston v. Cahill, et al., that the settlement
conference did not go forward on January 18, 2011, but was re-scheduled for March 10-11, 2011.
On January 28, 2011, counsel for the defendants moved for an extension of time to
4
respond to the October 25, 2010 request for production until April 1, 2011 claiming that she was
still preparing responses to the request and opining that any settlement in the other case would
necessarily include this case. Although the court granted this motion for an extension of time,
counsel has still not responded to the October production request. Instead, counsel filed a second
motion for extension of time on March 14, 2011, seeking an extension until July 19, 2011 to
respond to the discovery request. Counsel informed the court that the settlement conference in
Alston v. Cahill, et al. had been continued until June 21, 2011 and that any settlement in that case
would necessarily include this case.
Counsel has never explained why the defendants failed to respond to the October 25,
2010 document request within thirty days after service of the request or why they neglected to
file a motion for extension of time to respond to the document request within the thirty day time
period. Furthermore, counsel has filed a notice indicating that the plaintiff had apparently
reneged on his earlier intent to settle the Alston v. Cahill, et al. case as well as this case and other
pending matters. Counsel has failed to demonstrate any good cause for delaying the defendants’
response to the October 2010 request until July 2011. Accordingly, the motion for extension of
time is denied and the motion to compel is granted. The defendants shall file their responses to
the October 25, 2010 Request for Production of Documents within thirty days of the date of this
order.
V.
Objection to Court Order [Doc. No. 82]
The plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting the defendants’ motion
for extension of time until April 1, 2011 to respond to his October 2010 request for production of
documents. He asks the court to vacate that order and direct the defendants’ to respond to his
October 2010 request for production of documents. In view of the court’s ruling above granting
5
the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to respond to the October 2010 request and
denying defendants’ motion seeking additional time to respond to that request, the objection to
the Magistrate Judge’s Order [Doc. No. 74] is overruled as moot.
VI.
Motion to Set Aside Order [Doc. No. 78]
On December 29, 2010, the plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for
Enlargement of Time.” See [Doc. No. 63]. In that motion, the plaintiff sought a second
extension of time to file a reply to defendants’ objection to his motion to depose inmates. The
Clerk, however, docketed the motion as a motion for extension of time to respond to discovery.
On January 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion for
Emergency Relief in Connection with Plaintiff’s Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order
Dkt. #25.” See [Doc. No. 29]. The Clerk docketed the motion as a motion for emergency relief
as to the scheduling order deadlines contained in Doc. No. 25 and to his December 29, 2010
motion for extension of time.
On January 26, 2011, the defendants filed a document entitled “Defendants’ Assent to
Plaintiff’s 12/29/10 Motion for Extension of Time.” [Doc. No. 70]. In the motion, defendants
indicated that they agreed to the requests for extension of time sought in the plaintiff’s December
29, 2010 motion as well as the January 19, 2011 motion.
On January 28, 2011, after reviewing the plaintiff’s motions for extension of time
[Doc. No. 63] and for emergency relief [Doc. No. 69] and the defendants’ notice assenting to the
relief sought by the plaintiff in those motions, Magistrate Judge Margolis granted the first motion
and granted the second motion to the extent it sought an extension of the scheduling order
deadlines until April 1, 2011 to complete discovery. See [Doc. No. 72]. The plaintiff asks the
6
court to set aside Judge Margolis’s Order pursuant to Rules 72.2 and 7(b)(3) of the Local Civil
Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
A district judge may modify or set aside a pretrial order issued by a magistrate judge
where the party shows that the magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., Local Rule 72.2(b), D. Conn. L. Civ. R.
The court concludes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the order of the magistrate was
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
It is apparent that the plaintiff believes that the motion for emergency relief [Doc. No.
29] was a motion filed by the defendants seeking to extend the deadline for responding to his
October 2010 request for production of documents. As discussed above, the motion for
emergency relief was filed by the plaintiff seeking to modify of the court’s scheduling order
deadlines. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s disagreement with the court’s order granting this motion
is unfounded.
The plaintiff also contests the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order granting the
motion for extension of time to file a reply to the defendants’ objection to his motion to depose
inmates because the Magistrate had already ruled on his motion for leave to depose inmates at the
time she granted the motion for extension of time. It is apparent that the decision of the
Magistrate Judge to grant the motion for extension of time to file a reply to the defendants’
objection to the motion to depose rather than denying it as moot was due to the fact that the Clerk
had docketed the plaintiff’s motion as a request for an extension of time to respond to or
complete discovery. Accordingly, the court does not consider the Magistrate Judge’s Order
granting the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a reply and motion seeking to extend
the deadline for completing discovery as clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Furthermore, the
7
court will not construe the plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration of Judge Margolis’s
ruling denying the motion to depose as the plaintiff has set forth no basis for reconsideration of
that ruling. The motion to set aside the Magistrate Judge’s January 28, 2011 Order is denied.
VII.
Motion for Extension of Scheduling Deadlines [Doc. No. 61]
Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 88]
On June 14, 2010, the court issued a scheduling order setting a deadline of December
14, 2010 for completion of discovery and a deadline of January 14, 2011 for filing motions for
summary judgment. The plaintiff seeks to extend the deadline for completing discovery until
June 30, 2011 and for filing motions for summary judgment until July 31, 2011.
On April 6, 2011, the defendants filed a motion seeking an extension of time until July
1, 2011 to respond to a request for production dated December 25, 2010.1 Counsel for the
defendants informed the court that a settlement conference in Alston v. Cahill, et al. is still
scheduled for June 21, 2011 and that any settlement in that case might include this case. Counsel
conceded, however, that the plaintiff has submitted documents to the court demonstrating his
lack of interest in settling any of his cases. Thus, the court concludes that counsel has not shown
good cause for an almost three month extension of time to respond to the December 2010
request. Accordingly, the motion for extension of time is granted in part. The defendants shall
respond to the December 25, 2010 document request within thirty days of the date of this order.
The plaintiff’s motion for extension of the scheduling order deadlines is granted to the
extent that all responses to discovery requests must be served on the opposing party or parties
In the motion for extension of time, counsel for the defendants refers to a document
request dated March 11, 2011. Counsel has represented to the court, however, that the document
request is in fact dated December 25, 2010.
1
8
within thirty days of the date of this order. Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed
within sixty days of the date of this order.
VIII.
Motion for Emergency Relief [Doc. No. 84]
The plaintiff asks the court to rule on his motions to compel and to set aside an order
of the court as well as his objection to an order of the court. The court has ruled on those
motions and objection supra. To the extent that plaintiff presses this motion, essentially one for
duplicative relief, the motion is denied as moot.
Conclusion
The plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw [Doc. No. 60] the motion to stay rulings is
DENIED as moot. The Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [Doc. No. 76] of all claims against
defendant Darryl Little is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, all claims against defendant Darryl Little are DISMISSED with prejudice. The
plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 75] the defendants to respond to his June 2010
correspondence is DENIED. The plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 64] the defendants to
respond to his October 25, 2010 Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. The
defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 83] to respond to the October 25, 2010
Request for Production of Documents is DENIED. The defendants’ Motion for Extension of
Time [Doc. No. 88] to respond to the December 25, 2010 Request for Production of Documents
is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall respond to the October 25, 2010 and December 25,
2010 Requests for Production of Documents within thirty days of the date of this order.
The Motion to Set Aside Order [Doc. No. 78] is DENIED and the Objection [Doc.
No. 82] to Court Order is OVERRULED as moot. The Motion for Emergency Relief [Doc. No.
9
84] is DENIED as moot. The plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Scheduling Order Deadlines
[Doc. No. 61] is GRANTED in part. All responses to discovery requests shall be served on the
opposing party or parties within thirty days of the date of this order. Any motions for summary
judgment shall be filed within sixty days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2011, at New Haven, Connecticut.
/s/ Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
10
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?