Wegrzyn v. Murphy et al

Filing 47

RULING granting in limited part and denying in large part plaintiff's 37 Motion to Compel (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 12/01/2015. (Malone, A.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------------------------------X
:
MICHAEL D. WEGRZYN
:
:
:
V.
:
:
PETER MURPHY ET AL.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------X

3:14 CV 406 (JBA)

DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2015

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed his pro se lawsuit regarding an alleged assault,
inadequate medical care, retaliation, and other unconstitutional activities in 2011 while he
was an inmate at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institute and Garner Correctional Institute.
(Dkt. #2). Under the latest Scheduling Order, filed on October 6, 2015 by U.S. District Judge
Janet Bond Arterton, all discovery is to be completed by December 18, 2015, and after a prefiling conference is held, all dispositive motions are to be filed by January 11, 2016. (Dkt.
#35). Judge Arterton has referred this file to this Magistrate Judge for pretrial motions.
(See Dkts. ##5, 25, 28).

A brief telephonic settlement conference held before this

Magistrate Judge on November 30, 2015 was not productive. (Dkts. ##36, 39, 46).
Plaintiff has filed five motions (Dkts. ##37, 40-41, 43-44), only the first of which is
ripe for adjudication.
On October 19, 2015, plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt.
#37), along with his declaration in support, brief in support, and seven exhibits.1 On

1

These exhibits are copies of: Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, dated
June 1, 2015 (Exh. 1); Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, also
dated June 1, 2015 (Exh. 2); Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents, dated September 24, 2015 (Exh. 3); Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's
Request for Production of Documents, also dated September 24, 2015 (Exh. 4); Rule 26(f) Report
of Parties' Planning Meeting, dated August 28, 2015 [Exh. 5]; DOC Administrative Directive 4.1,

November 9, 2015, defendants filed their objection and brief in opposition.2 (Dkt. #42).
After a careful review of the pending discovery requests (Dkt. #37, Exhs. 1-4), the
Magistrate Judge rules as follows:
Regarding plaintiff's five Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents
(id., Exhs. 2-3), plaintiff's motion is granted in limited part with respect to Nos. 1-3 only to
the extent that any medical staff member's name or mental health staff member's name
appears in plaintiff's mental health records from 2011 to the present, and is granted in
limited part with respect to Nos. 4-5 only to the extent that any staff member's name
appears in DOC documents regarding plaintiff's prison assignments and transfers from 2011
to the present; for any such staff, defendants shall provide the names, titles and job duties,
and if readily available, job description of such staff member.
Regarding plaintiff's eight Requests for Production of Documents (id., Exhs. 1, 4),
plaintiff's motion is denied with respect to No. 1, as he can obtain the information through
PACER, is denied without prejudice with respect to Nos. 2-4 in that plaintiff can obtain copies
of his medical records through DOC Administrative Directive 4.4 (Exh. 7), is denied with
respect to Nos. 5-6 in that apparently no responsive documents exist, and is denied with
respect to Nos. 7-8 in that plaintiff has access to his disciplinary records and grievances.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. #37) is denied in large part;
with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, defendants shall respond to the limited part granted
above on or before December 24, 2015.
Plaintiff's four additional motions (Dkts. ##40-41, 43-44) will be ruled upon once all

effective June 15, 2010 [Exh. 6]; and DOC Administrative Directive 4.4, effective March 19, 2015
[Exh. 7].
2

A copy of a court decision was attached.

2

the briefing has been completed.
This is not a Recommended Ruling, but a ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the
standard of review of which is specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636; FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72;
and Rule 72.2 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 timely made objection.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within
fourteen calendar days after service of same); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; Rule
72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut; Small v. Secretary, H&HS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure
to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling may preclude further
appeal to Second Circuit).3
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 1st day of December, 2015.

/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

3

If the pro se plaintiff and/or defense counsel believe that a continued settlement
conference before this Magistrate Judge would be productive, he or she should contact this
Magistrate Judge's Chambers accordingly at an appropriate time.

3