Brown v. UConn Medical Group et al
Filing
100
RULING (see attached) granting 75 plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time until July 15, 2014 ; granting 77 defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; denying 80 plaintiff's Motion to Compel; granting to the limi ted extent set forth in the Ruling 81 plaintiff's Motion for Order, and defendants shall respond on or before July 7, 2014 ; granting 87 plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time until July 15, 2014; denying 88 plaintif f's Motion for Sanctions; granting to the limited extent set forth in the Ruling 89 plaintiff's Motion to Compel, and defendants shall respond on or before July 7, 2014 ; denying 90 plaintiff's Motion to Compel; denying 91 plaintiff's Motion to Compel; denying 92 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; and granting 96 plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time until July 15, 2014 . Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 6/20/2014. (Watson, M.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------------------------------X
KENYA BROWN
:
:
:
v.
:
:
UCONN MEDICAL GROUP, et al.,
:
------------------------------------------------------X
No. 3:12 CV 1305(JBA)
DATE: JUNE 20, 2014
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS (Dkts. ## 75, 77, 80, 81, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96)
Eleven pending motions are now ripe for decision: (1) defendants’ Motion for Leave to File
Excess Pages (Dkt. #77), filed on May 8, 2014; (2-4) plaintiff’s three unopposed Motions for
Extension of Time (Dkts. ##75, 87, 96), filed May 1, June 2, and June 5, 2014, respectively; (5)
plaintiff's Motion to Compel Inspection of Video Surveillance (Dkt. #80), filed May 12, 2014, in
response to which defendants filed their objection on May 23, 2014 (Dkt. #84); (6) plaintiff's
Motion for Order (Dkt. #81), also filed May 12, 2014, as to which defendants filed their objection
on June 2, 2014 (Dkt. #86);1 (7) plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. #88), filed June 2, 2014, in
response to which defendants filed their objection on June 5, 2014 (Dkt. #94); (8) plaintiff's Motion
to Compel Discovery and Information (Dkt. #89), filed on June 3, 2014; (9) plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Admission and Production of Interrogatories (Dkt. #90), also filed on June 3, 2014, in
response to which defendants filed their objection on June 11, 2014 (Dkt. #97); (10) plaintiff's
Motion to Compel the Discovery of Dr. Pillai (Dkt. #91), also filed on June 3, 2014, in response to
which defendants filed their objection on June 11, 2014 (Dkt. #98);2 and (11) plaintiff's Motion
1
Copies of case law are attached.
2
Attached to defendants' objection are the following exhibits: a copy of Dr. Pillai's Response[s] to
Plaintiff's April 2, 2014 Discovery Requests, dated April 28, 2014 (Exh. 1); a copy of Dr. Pillai's
Response[s] to Plaintiff's April 2, 2014 Production Requests, dated April 29, 2014 (Exh. 2); and a copy of
case law.
for Reconsideration (Dkt. #92), filed June 3, 2014.3
I. DISCUSSION
A. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Dkt. #77)
Defendants move for leave to file a memorandum in support of their motion for summary
judgment that exceeds forty pages, as to which plaintiff has not objected. Defendants’ Motion
(Dkt. #77) is granted.
B. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. #88)
Plaintiff asks this Court to sanction defendants’ counsel for submitting defendant Nancy
Walton’s affidavit in support of the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which states that
plaintiff did not suffer any injuries on August 8, 2012, after defendant Walton completed an
incident report the night of the accident identifying injuries suffered by plaintiff. (Dkt. #88, at 25).4 In his motion, plaintiff indicates that he filed this motion on the same day that he took the
Court’s suggestion to submit a request to counsel to withdraw defendant Walton’s affidavit. (Id.
at 2-3).
In their objection, defendants represent that plaintiff has misconstrued defendant Waltons'
medical abbreviation. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. #88) is denied.
C. Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Dkts. ##80, 81, 89, 90, 91)
Plaintiff has filed five motions to compel in which he seeks (1) copies of video surveillance
tapes (Dkt. #80, at 1); (2-3) the fifteen names, inmate numbers, and location of the witnesses
to the August 8, 2012 bus incident (Dkt. #81, at 1-2; Dkt. #89, at 1-2); (4) interrogatory
responses from defendants Meeker, Francis, Santinelli, Lightner, Walton, Brown, and Pillai (Dkt.
3
Plaintiff's additional motion (Dkt. #99) has not been fully briefed yet.
4
Attached to plaintiff's motion is a copy of a portion of the affidavit of defendant Walton.
2
#90, at 1); and (5) copies of all grievances, lawsuits and disciplinary actions against defendant
Pillai. (Dkt. #91, at 1-2).
In the first motion, plaintiff seeks video footage from August 8, 2012. (Dkt. #80, at 1-2).
In response to his request, defendants state that they have "triple checked[,]" and there is "simply
no video footage of the evening in question as plaintiff requests." (Dkt. #84)(emphasis in original).
Plaintiff provides no evidence to support his belief that footage of the automobile accident exists,
and the Court cannot order defendants to produce something they do not have. Accordingly,
plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. #80) is denied.
In the second and third motions (Dkts. #81, at 1-2; Dkt. #89, at 1-2), plaintiff seeks the
fifteen names, inmate numbers, and location of the witnesses to the August 8, 2012 bus incident.
Defendants oppose compliance with this discovery request on grounds that plaintiff seeks protected
health information regarding other inmates, and compliance with this request would constitute a
security risk to correctional staff, inmates, or facilities. (Dkt. #86, at 1). Defendants further argue
that the vehicular accident was mere negligence, and does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. (Id. at 2-3). Insofar as this litigation is focused upon defendants' actions, or inactions,
at the Bridgeport Correctional Center after the bus accident occurred (see Dkt. #2, at 2-3), any
information regarding the inmates who were on the bus at that time is irrelevant. Plaintiff argues
that "[m]any of these inmates were also hurt. . . ." (Dkt. #81, at 1). The only information that
is relevant, at the outset, is the number of inmates seen by medical personnel at the prison that
night as a result of the accident, whether any of them were later taken to the infirmary or
emergency room (and if so, how many), as well as the number of medical staff members who
examined them. If, hypothetically speaking, an overwhelming majority of these fifteen inmates
had been seriously injured and taken from the prison by ambulance to the hospital, and defendant
3
Walton had been the only medical staff available and inmates had waited hours to be evaluated
by her at the prison, then those facts might rise to a constitutional violation.
Accordingly,
defendants shall provide this limited information on or before July 7, 2014.5 These two Motions
to Compel (Dkts. ##81, 89) are granted to the limited extent set forth above.
In the fourth and fifth motions (Dkts. ##90-91), plaintiff seeks responses to requests for
admission and interrogatories directed to defendants Meeker, Francis, Santinelli, Lightner, Walton,
Brown, and Pillai, and copies of lawsuits, grievances and disciplinary actions against defendant
Pillai. Motions to compel are governed by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule 37. The local rule requires that, before filing a motion to
compel, the moving party must confer with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the
dispute. D. CONN. L. CIV. R. 37(a). The purpose of this rule is to encourage the parties to resolve
discovery disputes without court intervention. See Hanton v. Price, No. 3:04 CV 473 (CFD), 2006
WL 581204, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 8, 2006)(citation omitted). If discussions are not successful, the
party moving to compel must submit an affidavit certifying the attempted resolution and specifying
which issues were resolved and which remain. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a); D. CONN. L. CIV. R. 37(a). In
addition, Local Rule 37(b)1 requires that copies of the discovery requests must be included as
exhibits. D. CONN. L. R. 37(b)1. Plaintiff has not complied with any of the requirements of Local
Rule 37 for these motions. He fails to attach the discovery requests, and he fails to file affidavits
or memoranda or document efforts to resolve these disputes. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a); D. CONN. L. CIV.
R. 37(a), 37(b)(1).
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the rules of discovery notwithstanding, defendants
5
Defense counsel shall provide a copy of defendants' supplemental response to this Magistrate
Judge's Chambers. Depending upon the result, the Magistrate Judge may need to engage in an in camera
review of the medical records of the seriously injured inmates, if any.
4
responded to the merits of the motions. (Dkts. ##97-98).
Regarding the fourth motion,
defendants state that they have responded to all discovery requests they have received and are
unaware of any outstanding requests or admission or interrogatories directed to defendants
Meeker, Francis, Santinelli, Lightner, Walton, Brown, or Pillai. (Dkt. #97, at 1). In light of
plaintiff's failure to comply with the rules of discovery, and absent any evidence of outstanding
requests, plaintiff's second Motion to Compel (Dkt. #90) is denied.
In the fifth motion, plaintiff seeks all grievances, lawsuits and disciplinary actions filed
against Dr. Pillai. (Dkt. #91). In his brief in opposition to plaintiff's Motion, defendant Dr. Pillai
objects on the same grounds stated in his April 28, 2014 response to plaintiff's request, that is, that
the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. (Dkt. #98, at 1-2 & Exh. 1). Defendants note that Dr. Pillai has been
providing medical care to Connecticut inmates for fourteen years. (Dkt. #98, at 1). As inmates
are well-known to be litigious, "it can be safely assumed that Dr. Pillai has been sued [and grieved]
by inmates on previous occasions." See Pearson v. Beard, No. 3:09-cv-54-KRG-KAP, 2012 WL
6811810, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2012) (“This case illustrates a fact of which I could take judicial
notice: inmates filing lawsuits is a routine activity.”), report and recommendation adopted absent
objection, 2013 WL 100387 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2013). Defendants contend that the fact that an
inmate submitted a grievance or filed a lawsuit, however, does not show that Dr. Pillai was
deliberately indifferent to that inmate’s medical needs and certainly is no indication regarding the
medical services Dr. Pillai afforded to the plaintiff in this case. (Dkt. #98, at 1-2). In addition,
defendants appropriately note that providing medical grievances filed by other inmates would
disclose their medical complaints, thereby violating the inmates’ privacy interests in their medical
conditions and possibly jeopardizing institutional safety and security by revealing potential
5
weaknesses. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff has failed to show the relevance of this request; accordingly,
plaintiff's fifth Motion to Compel (Dkt. #91) is denied.
D. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #92)
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s ruling denying his motion for appointment of
counsel. (Dkt. #92). Plaintiff’s previous motion was denied because it was not clear that the
plaintiff could not obtain legal assistance on his own. (See Dkt. #85). Although titled as a motion
for reconsideration, plaintiff actually is refiling his motion for appointment of counsel.
The Second Circuit has made clear that before an appointment of counsel is even
considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that he is unable to obtain counsel. Saviano
v. Local 32B-32J, 75 F. App’x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2003), quoting Cooper v. A Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d
170, 173 (2d Cir. 1989). Although plaintiff stated in his prior motion that he had contacted ten law
firms, he only provided letters from two firms declining assistance and there was no indication that
plaintiff has sought representation in this case rather than one of his other cases. (Dkt. #85, at
1-2). Plaintiff now states that he has resent letters asking that any denials specifically reference
this case, but has provided no evidence that he has been denied assistance. (Dkt. #92, at 1). In
addition, this Court noted in the prior ruling that plaintiff had not shown that he was unable to
obtain legal assistance from Inmates’ Legal Assistance Program. (Dkt. #85, at 2). Plaintiff now
concedes that he has received some legal assistance from an attorney at Inmates’ Legal Assistance
Program, but explains that the attorney cannot represent him. (Id. at 1-2). Although Inmates'
Legal Assistance Program will not appear on behalf of any inmate, the lawyers can provide legal
assistance with such matters as responding to motions. Plaintiff does not indicate that the attorney
is unwilling to assist him with a response to the motion for summary judgment or that the attorney
will not assist him to obtain statements from the other inmates in the transport bus. Thus, plaintiff
6
still has not show that he is unable to obtain legal assistance on his own. Accordingly, plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #92) is denied.
E. Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time (Dkt. ##75, 87, 96)
Plaintiff has filed three motions for extension of time, which are unopposed. In the first
motion, he seeks an extension until June 15, 2014 to complete discovery and file a dispositive
motion. (Dkt. #75). In the third motion, plaintiff seeks an extension of time, again until June 15,
2014, to respond to the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. #96). That date has
passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition memorandum or cross-motion for summary
judgment. However, both motions (Dkts. ##75, 96) are granted until July 15, 2014.
In the second motion, plaintiff seeks an unspecified extension of time to respond to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #87). Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time
to File a Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #87) is granted. On or before July
15, 2014, plaintiff shall file his opposition, either as a memorandum, or as a cross-motion for
summary judgment.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time (Dkts. ##75, 87, 96)
are granted until July 15, 2014;
defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Dkt. #77) is granted;
plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Inspection of Video Surveillance (Dkt. #80) is denied;
plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Dkts. ##81 & 89) are granted to the limited extent set forth
above, and defendants shall respond on or before July 7, 2014;
plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. #88) is denied;
plaintiff's Motion to Compel Admission and Production of Interrogatories (Dkt. #90) is
7
denied;
plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery of Dr. Pillai (Dkt. #91) is denied; and
plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #92) is denied.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of June 2014, at New Haven, Connecticut.
/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan G. Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge
8
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?