Wegrzyn v. Murphy et al

Filing 51

RULING granting in limited part and denying in large part plaintiff's 40 Motion to Compel; granting until February 12, 2016 plaintiff's 41 Motion for Extension of Time; denying as moot plaintiff's 43 Motion for Extension o f Time; and granting plaintiff's 44 Motion to Appoint Counsel to the limited extent that pro bono counsel shall be appointed for him for, initially, settlement purposes only, and denying the motion without prejudice to renew in all other respects (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 12/9/2015. (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 9, 2015

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. #40), ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Dkts. #41, 43), AND ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL (Dkt. #44)
The factual and procedural history behind this lawsuit was briefly summarized in this
Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, filed December 1, 2015 (Dkt. #47),
["December 1, 2015 Discovery Ruling"], familiarity with which is presumed; in that ruling,
plaintiff's motion was denied in large part and granted in limited part, with the limited
responses due by December 24, 2015. (At 2-3).
Four more of plaintiff's motions are now ripe for adjudication. On November 2, 2015,
plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Discovery, declaration and brief in support (Dkt. #40),1
as to which defendants filed their brief in opposition twenty-one days later (Dkt. #45).2
Plaintiff filed his reply brief on December 7, 2015. (Dkt. #49).3
1

The following three exhibits were attached: copy of Plaintiff's Second Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents, dated September 10, 2015; copy of letter from the pro se
plaintiff to defense counsel, dated September 10, 2015; and copy of Defendants' Responses to
Plaintiff's Second Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, dated October 15,
2015.
2

A copy of a court decision is attached, as well as additional copies of the discovery filings
at issue (Exhs. A-B).
3

The following exhibits were attached: copy of letter from the pro se plaintiff to defense
counsel, dated August 25, 2015; copy of Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents,
also dated August 25, 2015; another copy of the September 10, 2015 letter; yet another copy of
plaintiff's September 10, 2015 discovery requests; a copy of the pro se plaintiff's letter to defense

On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed his first Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #41),
with respect to expert reports.

Ten days later, plaintiff filed two additional motions – his

second Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #43),4 and his Motion for Appointment of Counsel
and Expert Witness, with affidavit and brief in support (Dkt. #44).5 No timely briefs in
opposition were filed to these three motions.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. #40) concerns his Second Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents, dated September 10, 2015, which contains eight
requests – Numbers 1-4 seek the names of all cell mates, and all documents created by the
DOC or its staff regarding such cell mates, from January 1, 2010 to October 10, 2013, at
MacDougall CI, Cheshire CI, Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center,6 and Numbers 5-8 seek
the names, titles, duties and job descriptions of all staff members who had responsibilities
with respect to disciplinary matters from January 1, 2010 to October 10, 2013 at MacDougall
CI, Gardner CI, Cheshire CI and Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center.7
After a careful review of the pending discovery requests, and consistent with the
December 1, 2015 Discovery Ruling, the Magistrate Judge rules as follows: plaintiff's motion

counsel, dated September 21, 2015; and a copy of Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of
Documents, dated September 21, 2015.
4

The following three exhibits are attached: plaintiff's affidavit, dated November 9, 2015;
copy of this Court's electronic calendar, filed 10/28/15 (Dkt. #39); and copy of letter to plaintiff,
dated October 27, 2015.
5

The following exhibits are attached: copies of letters between the pro se plaintiff and
various attorneys, dated September 28, October 5, 19, 20, 27, 28 & 30, and November 1, 2015;
copies of plaintiff's inmate accounts; plaintiff's afifdavit of indigence, dated August 25, 2015;
plaintiff's affidavit of mental health and medical care diagnosis; and copy of plaintiff's authorizaton
for release of medical records, dated November 9, 2015.
6

Plaintiff lists them as two separate correctional facilities.

7

Plaintiff lists only Corrigan Correctional Center.

2

is granted in limited part with respect to Nos. 1-4 only to the extent that unless security
matters are at issue, defendants shall identify all cell mates whose names appear in any DOC
documents that bear upon the incidents at issue in this lawsuit, from January 1, 2011
through October 10, 2013, and is denied in all other respects.8 Similarly, plaintiff's motion
is granted in limited part with respect to Nos. 5-8 only to the extent that any staff member's
name appears in DOC documents regarding plaintiff's disciplinary matters from January 1,
2011 through October 10, 2013; for any such staff, defendants shall provide the names, titles
and job duties, and if readily available, job description of such staff member.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. #40) is denied in large part,
but with respect to the limited disclosure and/or production ordered above, defendants shall
respond on or before January 6, 2016.
In addition, plaintiff's Motion for Counsel and Expert Witness (Dkt. #44) is granted
to the limited extent that pro bono counsel shall be appointed for him for, initially,
settlement purposes only, and is denied without prejudice to renew in all other respects.
After counsel has been appointed, fully familiarized himself or herself with the file, and
contacted plaintiff at the Saint Lucie County Jail, pro bono counsel shall notify this Magistrate
Judge's Chambers to schedule a continued settlement conference.
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #41) is granted until February 12,
2016 to the extent that plaintiff may seek expert discovery, without prejudice to plaintiff
seeking additional time, as necessary, and plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #43)
is denied without prejudice as moot, the first telephonic settlement conference having taken
place. (Dkt. #46).
8

If defendants have any security concerns in identifying such cell mates, they may submit
the relevant records to this Magistrate Judge's Chambers for her in camera review.

3

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).
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 9th day of December, 2015.

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

4