Brown v. UConn Managed Health Care et al

Filing 44

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS: granting [Dkt. #34] Motion to Amend/Correct; denying without prejudice to renew ar a later time [Dkt. #35] Motion to Compel; denying without prejudice to renew at a later time [Dkt. #30] Motion for Order (Motion for Depositions on Written Questions); granting absent objection [Dkt. #31] Motion for Leave to File Documents Electronically. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 10/28/2014. (Watson, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KENYA BROWN,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
UCONN MANAGED HEALTH CARE, et al., :
Defendants.
:

CASE NO. 3:13 CV 931(JBA)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS (Dkts. ##30, 31, 34, 35)
On September 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton
referred the pending motions to this Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #37).
Plaintiff
complaint,

has
and

filed
to

motions

compel,

for

and

a

deposition,

defendants

seek

to

amend

leave

to

his
file

documents electronically. The Court considers these motions below.
I.

Motion for Deposition (Dkt. #30)
In this motion, plaintiff seeks leave to conduct depositions

on written questions of Dr. Melissa Bonasera, Dr. Craig Burns, Dr.
Gerard Gagne, Dr. Ted Lawlor and APRN Lea Panella.
A deposition on written questions requires the deponent to
appear before an officer who will ask the deponent the questions
and record his answers.

The answers are prepared, certified and

sent to the party who requested the deposition.

See FED. R. CIV. P.

31(b); Patterson v. Bannish, No. 10 CV 1481(AWT), 2011 WL 2518749,
at *3 (D. Conn. June 23, 2011).

Plaintiff here fails to identify

the officer before whom the depositions will be taken or to

indicate how he intends to pay for the depositions.
despite

the

fact

that

defendants

failed

to

file

Accordingly,
a

brief

in

opposition, plaintiff’s Motion for Depositions on Written Questions
(Dkt. #30) is denied without prejudice to renew at a later time.
II.

Motion to File Documents Electronically (Dkt. #31)
In this motion, defendants seek leave to file documents

electronically with the court.

They note that copies of any

documents so filed will be mailed to plaintiff.
opposed this motion.

Plaintiff has not

Accordingly, defendants’ Motion for Leave to

File Documents Electronically (Dkt. #31) is granted.
III. Motion to Amend (Dkt. #34)
Plaintiff has filed a third motion seeking to amend his
complaint.

In

the

proposed

amended

complaint,

he

adds

as

defendants Dr. Melissa Bonasera, Dr. Craig Burns, Dr. Gerard Gagne,
Dr. John Doe, Dr. Ted Lawlor and APRN Lea Panella.

He alleges that

these new defendants also were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs.
The limitations period for filing a section 1983 action is
three years.
1994).

See Lounsbury v. Jeffries, 25 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.

Under federal law, a cause of action accrues when the

plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm done to him
that reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action.

See

United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 122-24 (1979).
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Bonasera treated him from 2007

2

through 2009.

(Dkt. #34-1, at 8, ¶ 4).

allegedly was treated by Dr. Burns.
14).

In June 2009, plaintiff

(Dkt. #34-1, at 9-10, ¶¶ 10,

From June 2009 until September 2010, plaintiff allegedly was

treated by Dr. Gagne.

(Dkt. #34-1, at 10-11, ¶ 15).

From

September 2010 until May 2011, plaintiff allegedly was under the
care of APRN Panella.

(Dkt. #34-1, at 12, ¶ 19).

Plaintiff allegedly first met with Dr. Lawlor in May 2011;
Dr. Lawlor discontinued plaintiff’s prescription for Risperdal in
July 2011.

(Dkt. #34-1, at 13-14, ¶¶ 23, 25).

Plaintiff alleges

that during the ensuing months, Dr. Lawlor and Dr. Pillai failed to
provide proper medical treatment for the side effects of the drug;
in August 2011, Dr. Lawlor asked Dr. Pillai to examine plaintiff
regarding the side effects; there are no more recent allegations
regarding Dr. Lawlor.

(Dkt. #34-1, at 15, ¶¶ 29-30).

Plaintiff’s claims against the persons sought to be added as
defendants concern the failure to warn him of the side effects of
Risperdal during the period in which the drug was prescribed to
him; the drug was discontinued in July 2011, more than three years
before plaintiff filed this motion. Plaintiff alleges, however,
that he only recently discovered that his symptoms were side
effects of Risperdal (see Dkt. #34-1, at 20-21, ¶¶ 52-62), and
defendants have not objected to the motion to amend. Thus, the
Court grants plaintiff leave to amend his complaint as his new
claims appear timely.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).

3

Accordingly,

plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Dkt. #34) is granted.
IV.

Motion to Compel (Dkt. #35)
In this motion, plaintiff moves to compel defendants to

respond to his discovery requests.

In his one-page motion, he

states only that he sent defendants several letters.
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. 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).

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. D. CONN. L.
CIV. R. 37(a). In addition, Local Rule 37(b)1 requires that the
moving party file a memorandum stating the precise nature of the
case, listing each item of discovery sought and explaining why the
item should be allowed.

D. CONN. L. CIV. R. 37(b)1. Further, copies

of the discovery requests must be included as exhibits.

Id.

Plaintiff has complied with none of these requirements. Thus,
despite

the

fact

that

defendants

failed

to

file

a

brief

in

opposition, plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. #35) is denied

4

without prejudice to renew at a later time.
V.

Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion for Depositions on Written Questions (Dkt.

#30) and Motion to Compel (Dkt. #35) are DENIED without prejudice
to renew at a later time.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File

Documents Electronically (Dkt. #31) is GRANTED absent objection.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. #34) is GRANTED.

The Clerk

is directed to docket the proposed amended complaint.
The Clerk further shall verify the current work addresses for
defendants Dr. Melissa Bonasera, Dr. Craig Burns, Dr. Gerard Gagne,
Dr. Ted Lawlor and APRN Lea Panella, with the Department of
Correction Office of Legal Affairs, and mail a waiver of service of
process request packet containing the amended complaint to each
defendant at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of
this Order.

The Clerk shall report to the court on the status of

that waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If
any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall
make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals
Service on the defendant in his or her individual capacity and the
defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).

5

So ordered this 28th day of October 2014, at New Haven,
Connecticut.
/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan G. Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

6