Harnage v. Barrone et al

Filing 107

RULING. For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling, the Court: grants, in part, and denies, in part, plaintiff's 75 MOTION to Expand Discovery; grants, in part, and denies, in part, plaintiff's 88 MOTION to Compel Production; gr ants, in part, and denies, in part, plaintiff's 89 MOTION to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories; and denies plaintiff's 105 MOTION to Renew and For Oral Argument re 88 MOTION to Compel, 89 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/11/2017. (Katz, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
JAMES A. HARNAGE
:
:
v.
:
:
S. BARRONE, et al.
:
:
------------------------------x

Civil No. 3:15CV01035(AWT)

August 11, 2017

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS [Doc. ##75, 88, 89, 105]
Pending before the Court are four motions filed by selfrepresented plaintiff James Harnage (“plaintiff”), two of which
seek to compel responses to plaintiff’s written discovery
requests. [Doc. ##88, 89]. The third motion seeks permission to
serve additional interrogatories on each of the 23 remaining
defendants (“motion to expand discovery”).1 [Doc. #75]. Plaintiff
has filed a fourth motion seeking to “renew” his motions to
compel and requesting oral argument on the motions to compel.
[Doc. #105]. Defendants have filed a memorandum in opposition to

The remaining defendants in this action are: Warden
Chapdelaine, Former Warden Peter Murphy, Deputy Wardens S.
Barrone and S. Frey, Captains VanOudenhave and Hall, Lieutenants
Roy, Kitt, Allison and Houston, and Correction Officers Maloid,
Anderson, Nolan, Taylor, Brito, Gonzalez, Vamos #1, Vamos #2,
McCormack, Roy, Tyburski, Griffith, and Scott (collectively
referred to as the “defendants”). Plaintiff later clarified that
he seeks to serve additional interrogatories only on defendant
Warden Chapdelaine. See Doc. ##83, 85.
1

1

plaintiff’s motions to compel [Doc. #103], but have not filed an
objection to plaintiff’s motion to expand discovery. For the
reasons articulated below, the Court: GRANTS, in part, and
DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s Motions to Compel [Doc. ##88, 89];
GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s Motion to
Expand Discovery [Doc. #75]; and DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to
Renew and For Oral Argument [Doc. #105].
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983
alleging violation of his right to bodily privacy. See generally
Doc. #1, Complaint. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that
defendants violated his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights by
creating and enforcing a policy that prevents him from using a
privacy sheet while using the toilet in his cell. See generally
id. Plaintiff also challenged the constitutionality of this
policy. See generally id. The claims have been narrowed
substantially by a ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Doc. #63.
The following allegations are derived from plaintiff’s
Complaint. See Doc. #1. At the time plaintiff filed the
Complaint on July 6, 2015, and at all times during the incidents
alleged, plaintiff was incarcerated at the MacDougall
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut (hereinafter
referred to as “MacDougall”). At MacDougall, defendant Murphy
implemented a policy prohibiting inmates from hanging a privacy
2

sheet while using the toilet.2 Defendant Chapdelaine has
maintained this policy and all other named defendants have
enforced it. Only MacDougall and Walker Correctional
Institutions, which are part of the same complex, have a policy
prohibiting the use of privacy sheets.
On August 13, 2012, defendant Maloid enforced the policy
against plaintiff. On August 17, 2012, defendant Hall, a female,
enforced the policy when she threatened plaintiff with
disciplinary action for using a privacy sheet.
On November 26, 2012, defendant Hall stood at plaintiff’s
cell door and ordered plaintiff to remove the privacy sheet,
which he did while “naked” and with “fecal matter still clinging
to him[.]” Doc. #1, Complaint at ¶32.
On December 5, 2012, defendant Anderson, a female, enforced
the policy when she made plaintiff “stand and expose himself”
and remove the sheet while she watched. Id. at ¶37. On December
21, 2012, defendant Nolan made plaintiff stand and remove the
sheet in the presence of plaintiff’s then-cellmate, alleged to
be a homosexual. The cellmate later commented on plaintiff’s
buttocks and genitals. At different times on December 23, 2012,
defendants Taylor and Brito enforced the policy by making

A privacy sheet is hung between the two occupants of a cell
while one of them uses the toilet.
2

3

plaintiff remove the sheet.
On February 6, 2013, and February 13, 2013, defendant
Gonzalez, a female, enforced the policy when she made plaintiff
remove the sheet while she watched and plaintiff was “completely
exposed.” Id. at ¶40.
On April 13, 2013, defendant Vamos #1 threatened plaintiff
with disciplinary action for using the privacy sheet and made
the plaintiff stand and remove the sheet while he watched. On
April 16, 2013, defendant McCormack made plaintiff remove the
sheet. On that same date, defendant VanOudenhave made plaintiff
remove the sheet and threatened plaintiff with disciplinary
action.
On May 2, 2013, defendant Vamos #1 made plaintiff remove
the sheet. On May 12, 2013, May 20, 2013, and May 22, 2013,
defendant Allison threatened plaintiff with disciplinary action,
and watched while plaintiff removed the sheet.
On July 8, 2013, defendant Boyd made plaintiff remove the
sheet. On July 14, 2013, defendant Roy made plaintiff remove the
sheet. On August 18, 2013, defendant Kitt, a female, threatened
plaintiff with disciplinary action and made plaintiff “stand
naked and take down the sheet[.]” Doc. #1, Complaint at ¶47. On
August 24, 2013, and on “multiple other occasions[,]” defendant
Vamos #2 threatened plaintiff with disciplinary action and made
plaintiff “stand naked and take down the sheet.” Id. at ¶48.
4

On October 8, 2013, defendant Houston threatened plaintiff
with disciplinary action and made plaintiff “stand naked to take
down the sheet.” Id. at ¶50. Defendant Houston continued to
threaten plaintiff even after he removed the sheet.
On June 12, 2014, July 3, 2014, and July 14, 2014,
defendant Tyburski, a female, enforced the policy by making
plaintiff remove the sheet and finish his bodily functions in
view of his cellmate. On July 4, 2014, defendant Scott, a
female, enforced the policy by making plaintiff remove the sheet
and finish his bodily functions in front of his cellmate as she
watched. On September 9, 2014, defendant Griffith, a female,
enforced the policy by making plaintiff remove the sheet and
finish his bodily functions in front of his cellmate as she
watched.
Plaintiff began to wait until his cellmate went to
recreation to perform his bodily functions. As a result,
plaintiff suffered persistent constipation. For seven months
while plaintiff was housed in an expansion area at MacDougall
plaintiff refers to as the “Green Mile,” defendants refused to
let plaintiff leave his cell to enjoy the remainder of his
recreation period after he used the toilet.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 6, 2015. [Doc. #1].
An Initial Review Order issued on August 4, 2015. [Doc. #7]. On
December 31, 2015, following several granted requests for
5

extensions to respond to plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. ##39, 44,
46, 52], defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
Complaint. [Doc. #53]. Following a granted request for an
extension of time [Doc. ##57, 58], on March 31, 2016, plaintiff
filed an objection to the motion to dismiss, along with a
supporting memorandum of law. [Doc. ##59, 60]. On August 24,
2016, Judge Thompson issued a Ruling granting defendants’ motion
to dismiss, in part. [Doc. #63]. Judge Thompson dismissed: any
Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claims [see id. at 83];
claims against female defendants Scott, Griffith, Kitt,
Anderson, Hall, Gonzalez and Tyburski for violation of
plaintiff’s right to privacy by viewing him perform bodily
functions [see id. at 10]; any Fourth Amendment privacy claims
against defendants VanOudenhave, Maloid, Nolan, Taylor, Brito,
Vamos #1, Vamos#2, McCormack, Boyd, Roy, Allison and Houston for
violation of plaintiff’s right to privacy by viewing him perform
bodily functions [see id. at 10-11]; any Eighth Amendment claims
relating to performing bodily functions in the presence of
another inmate or a correctional officer [see id. at 14]; any
substantive due process claims [see id. at 16]; and all claims

All pagination cited herein refers to the page number
designated by the ECF heading.
3

6

against defendants DeMarco, McDaniels and Doe [see id. at 22].4
Judge Thompson has permitted plaintiff’s Complaint to “proceed
against the remaining defendants on the Fourth Amendment privacy
claim regarding implementation and enforcement of the policy
prohibiting use of a privacy sheet.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has filed two motions seeking to compel written
discovery responses from defendants. [Doc. ##88, 89]. Plaintiff
has also filed a motion to expand discovery, which, as now
clarified by plaintiff, seeks permission to serve an additional
22 interrogatories on defendant Warden Chapdelaine. See Doc.
##75, 83. On March 2, 2017, Judge Thompson referred this matter
to the undersigned for a status conference and a ruling on
plaintiff’s motion to expand discovery. [Doc. #79]. On March 20,
2017, the Court held an in-person discovery status conference.
[Doc. ##80, 85, 86]. During this conference, plaintiff indicated
that he wished to file a motion to compel directed to his
written discovery requests served in September 2016. See Doc.
#85 at 2. The Court set a deadline of April 17, 2017, for

The claims against these three defendants were dismissed for
failure to identify and timely serve defendants with the
Complaint. See Doc. #63 at 22. Judge Thompson has permitted
plaintiff to reopen the claims against these defendants provided
that plaintiff can provide service information for each of these
defendants. See id.
4

7

plaintiff to file any motions to compel directed towards his
September 2016 written discovery requests. See id.5 Plaintiff
timely filed his motions to compel on March 28 and 29, 2017,
respectively. [Doc. ##88, 89].6 After two requested and granted
extensions of time [Doc. ##92, 93, 100, 101], defendants filed
their response to plaintiff’s motions to compel on May 26, 2017.
[Doc. #103]. On July 26, 2017, plaintiff filed a Motion to Renew
and for Oral Argument as to the motions to compel. [Doc. #105].
Judge Thompson referred that motion to the undersigned on July
27, 2017. [Doc. #106].
Because plaintiff proceeds in this matter as a selfrepresented party, the Court interprets his briefing “liberally”
and reads his filings “to raise the strongest arguments that
they suggest.” Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir.
1994) (citing Mikinberg v. Baltic S.S. Co., 988 F.2d 327, 330
(2d Cir. 1993)). “Though a court need not act as an advocate for
pro se litigants, in pro se cases there is a greater burden and

In the Court’s Memorandum of Conference, a copy of which was
mailed to plaintiff, the Court reminded plaintiff that “any
motion to compel must include, for each request at issue, an
argument as to why plaintiff believes he is entitled to the
information sought, and why he believes the defendant’s
objection or response to that particular request is not wellfounded.” Doc. #85 at 2-3.
5

The Court took plaintiff’s motion to expand discovery under
advisement, pending receipt of plaintiff’s motions to compel.
See Doc. #85 at 3.
6

8

a correlative greater responsibility upon the district court to
insure that constitutional deprivations are redressed and that
justice is done.” Davis v. Kelly, 160 F.3d 917, 922 (2d Cir.
1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978)). Bearing this in
mind, doings its best to glean from his submissions the
discovery plaintiff seeks to obtain, the Court addresses each
motion in turn.
I.

Legal Standard
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets

forth the scope and limitations of permissible discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to the
recent amendment of Rule 26 further explain that
[a] party claiming that a request is important to resolve
the issues should be able to explain the ways in which
the underlying information bears on the issues as that
party understands them. The court’s responsibility,
using all the information provided by the parties, is to
consider these and all the other factors in reaching a
case-specific determination of the appropriate scope of
discovery.

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
Nevertheless, “[t]he party resisting discovery bears the burden
of showing why discovery should be denied.” Cole v. Towers
Perrin Forster & Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79, 80 (D. Conn. 2009).
II.

Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories
Directed to all the Named Defendants [Doc. #89]
Plaintiff seeks to compel answers to his interrogatories

dated August 25, 2016, which were directed to all defendants.
[Doc. #89]. Plaintiff takes issue with the “boilerplate
objections” asserted by defendants in response to the
interrogatories. See Doc. #89 at 2-3. Defendants respond that
the parties have met and conferred on several occasions, and
that on March 24, 2017, in an effort to resolve the disputed
requests, counsel for defendants hand-delivered to plaintiff
“clarifications” of defendants’ objections. See Doc. #103 at 2;
see also Doc. #103-5.7 Counsel for defendants represents that

On July 26, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to “renew” his
motions to compel discovery and for oral argument on those
motions. See Doc. #105. Plaintiff raises several issues in this
motion. First, he contends that defendants’ response to the
motions to compel is untimely and violates the Court’s
scheduling order requiring that such response be filed within 21
days of plaintiff’s motion. See id. at ¶8. However, plaintiff
fails to acknowledge that the Court granted defendants two
extensions of time until May 26, 2017, in which to respond to
plaintiff’s motions. See Doc. ##93, 101. Defendants filed their
response on May 26, 2017 [Doc. #103], and therefore it is
timely. Plaintiff also contends that the defendants improperly,
and untimely, served “clarifications” to their objections to
plaintiff’s written discovery requests, which plaintiff contends
7

10

following these several meet and confers, the parties were able
to resolve many of the disputes, but that plaintiff continues to
seek additional responses to the following Interrogatories: 9,
13-16, 17(a)-(c), 19 and 21. See Doc. #103 at 2.
a. Untimely Responses and Boilerplate Objections, Generally
Before addressing the specific contested interrogatories,
the Court turns first to plaintiff’s arguments that defendants’
answers to the interrogatories and responses to the requests for
production were untimely, and that their objections are
insufficient.

“was an attempt by the defendants to make objections that they
should have originally made in a timely manner in an attempt to
avoid the FRCP mandate that an objection not timely is deemed
waived.” Doc. #105 at ¶6. However, as further explained below,
defendants’ objections were not untimely. The Court further
finds that the “clarifications” are just that – clarifications
of objections timely made in response to plaintiff’s written
discovery requests, in an appropriate effort to resolve an issue
raised by plaintiff in the motions to compel. Accordingly, to
the extent plaintiff requests this Court to disregard
defendants’ “clarifications,” this request is DENIED. To the
extent plaintiff seeks to “renew” his motions to compel, there
is nothing to renew at this time, and that request is also
DENIED. Finally, plaintiff’s request to schedule oral argument
on the motions to compel is also DENIED, as the Court finds that
oral argument would not further clarify the issues raised in
plaintiff’s motions to compel or defendants’ response. See D.
Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a)3 (“Notwithstanding that a request for oral
argument has been made, the Court may, in its discretion, rule
on any motion without oral argument.”). Therefore, the Court
DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to Renew and For Oral Argument [Doc.
#105].
11

Plaintiff contends that each of defendants’ objections to
the written discovery requests is waived because defendants did
not serve their responses by November 14, 2016. See generally
Doc. #89 at 1-4; Doc. #88 at 1-2. Plaintiff asserts that
defendants received an extension of time to respond to
plaintiff’s written discovery requests only through November 14,
2016, and refers to the Order entered by Judge Thompson granting
defendants’ request for that extension of time. See Doc. #89 at
1-2; Doc. #88 at 1-2. However, plaintiff fails to acknowledge
that defendants sought, and were granted, a second extension of
time until December 14, 2016, to answer plaintiff’s written
discovery requests. See Doc. ##67, 68. Defendants’ responses to
plaintiff’s discovery requests, which were served on December 7,
2016, and December 14, 2016, see Doc. #103-3, #103-4, were
timely. Accordingly, defendants’ objections are not waived as a
result of untimeliness.
Plaintiff next contends that defendants’ objections are
“boilerplate” and lack the specificity required by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Doc. #89 at 2, 4; Doc. #88 at 1-2.
Defendants “disagree that their objections were deficient[,]”
but in an effort to resolve that specific issue, four days
before plaintiff filed the motions to compel, defendants
provided “clarifications” of the objections. Doc. #103 at 3; see
also Doc. #103-5, #103-6 (defendants’ clarifications of written
12

discovery responses dated March 24, 2017). The Court will
consider defendants’ clarified objections in addressing each of
the remaining written discovery requests at issue.
b. Interrogatory 9
Plaintiff seeks to compel answers to Interrogatory 9:
If you have ever been the subject of any civilian
complaint or internal disciplinary proceeding having to
do with alleged abuses of your powers as a correction
officer, state as to each such proceeding: (a) The
substance of any charges made against you in each such
proceeding; (b) The name and address of each person who
brought such charges; (c) The date and outcome of each
such proceeding, including the date and nature of any
subsequent disciplinary action against you, if any was
taken.
Doc. #89 at 7. Defendants object: “This request does not pertain
to relevant material and is outside the scope of rule 26(b)(1).
Moreover, this request may implicate safety and security
concerns to the extent that the plaintiff seeks personnel
records.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-5 at 5. Defendants have
clarified:
This request does not seek relevant or material
information in that it is not limited to information
regarding the policy prohibiting inmates from blocking
a clear view into their cells. This request is also vague
in that it does not define “civilian complaint.”
Furthermore, there are also safety and security concerns
to the extent that plaintiff seeks staff personnel
records or records pertaining to other inmates.
Doc. #103-5 at 5. In addition to contending that defendants’
objections are inadequate, plaintiff contends that the
information sought is “perfectly within the ambit of
13

discovery[,]” and that “[d]iscovery rules require the pro se
prisoner to be allowed to obtain information about the
defendants and their prior records that may be relevant to their
credibility and other issues, including pattern and practice or
absence of mistake.” Doc. #89 at 7-8 (collecting cases).
Defendants respond that the Court should deny plaintiff’s
request because plaintiff provides no explanation as to the
relevance of the information sought, and the request is “far
broader than merely seeking disciplinary records pertaining to
dishonesty.” Doc. #103 at 5.
As currently framed, Interrogatory 9 is overbroad as it is
not limited in temporal scope and potentially seeks the
identification of every complaint relating to “alleged abuses of
power” made against each defendant since the beginning of time.
Accordingly, the Court sustains, in part, defendants’ objection
to Interrogatory 9 on the grounds of relevance and over breadth.
However, the Court will GRANT, in limited part, plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to Interrogatory 9.
“[T]he great weight of the policy in favor of discovery in
civil rights actions supplements the normal presumption in favor
of broad discovery[.]” Nat’l Cong. for Puerto Rican Rights ex
rel. Perez v. City of New York, 194 F.R.D. 88, 96 (S.D.N.Y.
2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting King v. Conde,
121 F.R.D. 180, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)). Generally, in a section
14

1983 case such as this, “[d]isciplinary records involving
complaints of a similar nature, whether substantiated or
unsubstantiated, could lead to evidence that would be admissible
at trial and thus, are discoverable.” Frails v. City of New
York, 236 F.R.D. 116, 117-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (alterations added)
(compiling cases); see also Linares v. Mahunik, No.
9:05CV0625(GLS)(RFT), 2008 WL 2704895, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. July 7,
2008) (“To the extent other inmates’ grievances or complaints
allege conduct similar to that alleged in the Complaint, and
were similarly directed against any of the named defendants, the
documents sought may well yield information relevant to
[plaintiff’s] claims, and such documents are therefore
discoverable.” (collecting cases)). Additionally, “[a] civil
rights plaintiff is entitled to prove by extrinsic evidence that
the defendant acted for the purpose of causing harm[] ... [and]
where malicious, aggravated conduct is purportedly involved,
reports of this conduct are admissible.” Lombardo v. Stone, No.
99CV4603(SAS), 2002 WL 113913, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2002)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Thus, a limited subset of the information plaintiff seeks
is relevant and discoverable. Accordingly, on or before
September 15, 2017, each defendant shall answer Interrogatory 9
as limited by the Court: For the years 2012 through 2014,
identify any grievance, complaint and/or disciplinary proceeding
15

brought against you that relates to the enforcement of the
MacDougall-Walker policy prohibiting inmates from hanging a
privacy sheet while using the toilet, including the date and
outcome of any identified grievance, complaint, or disciplinary
proceeding.8
To the extent defendants have any safety or security
concerns, any such concerns may be alleviated by an appropriate
protective order.
c. Interrogatory 13
Plaintiff seeks to compel answers to Interrogatory 13:
If you claim that you are entitled to qualified immunity
in connection with any of the events alleged in the
complaint, state exactly and completely: (a) Your entire
basis for making such claim; (b) All physical evidence
which might or could be introduced on your behalf in
support of such claim; (c) Identify all witnesses who
might or could be called to testify on your behalf in
support of such claim.
Doc. #89 at 9. Defendants object on the grounds that this
interrogatory calls for “legal analysis,” see id. at 9-10, and
have clarified: “This request calls for legal analysis because
‘qualified immunity’ is a special defense that requires inter
alia legal research and ascertaining whether the defendants’

“While the underlying facts of the incident may be relevant or
lead to relevant evidence for discovery purposes, the
admissibility of such evidence at trial is altogether another
matter.” Cox v. McClellan, 174 F.R.D. 32, 35 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
8

16

alleged actions violated ‘clearly established law,’ as
established by federal and state case law.” Doc. #103-5 at 7-8.
Plaintiff, relying on Rule 33(a)(2), contends that he “is
entitled to ask the defendants for an application of law to fact
within their knowledge of their actions.” Doc. #89 at 10.
Defendants respond that they “are current and former employees
for the CT DOC and are not practicing attorneys; it would be
unfair and prejudicial to require them to answer this request.”
Doc. #103 at 5.
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the
proper scope of interrogatories. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(a)(2). “An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because
it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the
application of law to fact, but the court may order that the
interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is
complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.”
Id. An interrogatory requesting such information is a
“contention interrogatory” and is “a perfectly acceptable form
of discovery[.]” Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading
(Ireland), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369
(S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citations omitted). “Such interrogatories ‘may
ask another party to indicate what it contends, to state all the
facts on which it bases its contentions, to state all the
evidence on which it bases its contentions, or to explain how
17

the law applies to the facts.’” Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais,
S.A., 242 F.R.D. 199, 233 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting McCarthy v.
Paine Webber Group, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 448, 450 (D. Conn. 1996)).
Interrogatory 13 requests each defendants’ “basis” for his
or her claim of qualified immunity, and for defendants to
identify any witnesses or physical evidence which bear on such a
defense. See Doc. #89 at 9-10. Interrogatory 13 is a “contention
interrogatory” and therefore falls within the scope of a
permissible interrogatory under Rule 33. See, e.g., Protex Int’l
Corp. v. Vanguard Prod. Grp., Inc., No. 05CV5355(ADS)(ARL), 2006
WL 3827423, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2006) (“[C]ontention
interrogatories ask a party: to state what it contends; to state
whether it makes a specific contention; to state all the facts
upon which it bases a contention; to take a position, and to
explain or defend that position, with respect to how the law
applies to facts; or to state the legal or theoretical basis for
a contention.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, the Court overrules defendants’ objections,
and GRANTS, in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to
Interrogatory 13. On or before September 15, 2017, each
defendant shall answer Interrogatory 13, rephrased as follows:
If you claim that you are entitled to qualified immunity in
connection with any of the events alleged in the Complaint, for

18

which a claim currently remains, state with specificity all
facts upon which you base that contention.9
d. Interrogatory 14
Plaintiff next seeks to compel answers to Interrogatory 14:
Identify any electronic or photographic record that was
made of any part of any of the events alleged in the
complaint or in your answers to the preceding
interrogatories, identify the person or persons having
present custody of such electronic or photographic
record or recording and state the exact present location
of each such photograph or recording.
Doc. #89 at 10. Defendants object: “This request does not
pertain to relevant material and is outside the scope of Rule
26(b)(1). The allegations in the complaint contain more than 100
paragraphs, span over several years, and contain too many
alleged incidents (many without dates) to respond to.” Id.; See
also Doc. #103-5 at 8. Defendants have clarified: “Please see
objection to request/clarification number 4. The information
requested is not relevant in that it inter alia pertains to
‘electronic and photographic information’ that pertains to the
enforcement of a policy against non-party inmates spanning
several years.” Id.10 In support of this request, plaintiff

Some courts in this circuit “have found contention
interrogatories premature where no significant discovery has
taken place.” Strauss, 242 F.R.D. at 233 (collecting cases)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Here, however, discovery has
now closed and plaintiff’s request is not premature.
9

10

The clarification of Interrogatory 4 asserts an objection on
19

points the Court to his “position statement” as to
Interrogatories 2, 4, and 9. See Doc. #89 at 11. Defendants
respond that they “have already indicated to the plaintiff that
the facility has confirmed that there are no saved video
recordings from the stationary cameras in the plaintiff’s unit
on the days of the alleged incidents[,]” and further rest on
their clarified objections. Doc. #103 at 5-6.
Plaintiff’s “position” as to Interrogatories 2 and 4 is
that defendants assert “boilerplate” objections and have waived
these objections as they were untimely. The Court rejects the
waiver argument for reasons previously stated. See Section
II.a., supra. The Court also rejects plaintiff’s contention that
defendants have asserted only boilerplate objections, in light
of defendants’ clarifications of their objections. Plaintiff’s
“position” as to Interrogatory 9 contends that the information
sought is relevant, and that plaintiff should be allowed to
obtain information relevant to defendants’ credibility and other
issues, including pattern and practice or absence of mistake.
See Doc. #89 at 7-8 (collecting cases).
As phrased, Interrogatory 14 is overbroad, not proportional
to the needs to the case, and seeks irrelevant information. It
potentially implicates every available photograph and video

grounds of over breadth. See Doc. #103-5 at 5.
20

recording of the MacDougall facility from at least 2012 through
2016. Plaintiff fails to provide any explanation specific to
this request regarding how the breadth of information sought is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. The Court cannot see how such a request could lead to
relevant information concerning the defendants’ credibility.
Moreover, defendants have represented that “there are no saved
video recordings from the stationary cameras in the plaintiff’s
unit on the days of the alleged incidents.” Doc. #103 at 5-6.11
The Court finds that defendants’ narrowing of Interrogatory 14
is appropriate and proportional to the needs of this case.
Accordingly, the Court sustains defendants’ objections and
DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to
Interrogatory 14. However, on or before September 15, 2017, at
least one defendant shall assert the representation regarding
the existence of the stationary video recordings in a verified
amended answer to Interrogatory 14. At least one defendant shall
further indicate whether any other video recordings exist, such
as by handheld cameras, which were taken of the plaintiff’s unit
on the days of the incidents alleged in the Complaint.

The Court will address plaintiff’s request for photographs in
connection with its discussion of Interrogatory 21.
11

21

e. Interrogatory 15
Plaintiff seeks to compel answers to Interrogatory 15:
If you have ever been arrested and/or convicted of any
crime whatsoever, identify by name and description the
nature of each such offense, the date of which same
occurred, and the location and disposition of any
prosecution arising out any such arrest.
Doc. #89 at 11. Defendants object on the grounds that
Interrogatory 15 “does not pertain to relevant material and is
outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) and could jeopardize DOC’s
safety and security.” Id. Defendants have clarified:
This request does not seek relevant or material
information in that it does not pertain to information
regarding the alleged policy prohibiting inmates from
blocking a clear view into their cells. Moreover, there
are also safety and security concerns to the extent that
plaintiff seeks information pertaining to any potential
arrest or criminal histories to the extent that it could
be used to intimidate or manipulate staff.
Doc. #89-1 at 11; see also Doc. #103-5 at 9. In support of this
request, plaintiff points the Court to his “position statement”
as to Interrogatories 2, 4, and 9. See Doc. #89 at 11.
Defendants respond that “plaintiff fails to provide any specific
reason for how this request is relevant to this case and fails
to sufficiently narrow it to evidence that is relevant or
conceivably admissible at trial,” and otherwise rest on their
clarified objections. Doc. #103 at 5-6.
Plaintiff’s “position” as to Interrogatories 2 and 4 is
that defendants have waived their “boilerplate” objections as

22

they were untimely. The Court rejects the waiver argument for
reasons previously stated. The Court also rejects plaintiff’s
contention that defendants have asserted only boilerplate
objections, in light of defendants’ clarifications.
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 provides, in relevant part,
that a criminal conviction for any felony and for “any crime
regardless of the punishment” that involves a “dishonest act or
false statement” by the convicted person shall be admitted for
purposes of attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness.
Fed. R. Evid. 609(a). If “more than 10 years have passed since
the witness’s conviction or release from confinement,” the
conviction may be admissible, subject to certain limitations.
Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). “Thus, information relating to convictions
for any felony and for any offense involving dishonesty or false
statement may be admissible, under certain circumstances,
regardless of the age of the conviction.” Torcasio v. New Canaan
Bd. of Ed., No. 3:15CV00053(AWT), 2016 WL 299009, at *2 (D.
Conn. Jan. 25, 2016), reconsideration denied, No.
3:15CV00053(AWT), 2016 WL 1275028 (Apr. 1, 2016).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, in part, plaintiff’s motion
to compel with respect to Interrogatory 15. On or before
September 15, 2017, each defendant shall provide an answer to
Interrogatory 15, limited to any felony offense or any offense
involving dishonesty or false statements, as contemplated by
23

Rule 609. To the extent defendants have any safety or security
concerns, any such concerns may be alleviated by the entry of an
appropriate protective order.
f. Interrogatory 16
Although not raised by plaintiff in his written motion,
defendants represent that during a telephone call plaintiff
stated that “he disputes the defendants’ responses[]” to
Interrogatory 16. Doc. #103 at 7. Interrogatory 16 requests
defendants to:
Identify each shift you worked, at MacDougall, within
the operative period of the complaint, including: (1)
the past assignment or housing unit, and; (b) The
shift time, beginning and ending, and; (c) The date of
each shift, and; (d) Any partner assigned to the post
with you.
Doc. #103-5 at 9-10. Defendants object: “This request does not
pertain to relevant material and is outside the scope of Rule
26(b)(1) and is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The
allegations in the complaint contain more than 100 paragraphs,
span over several years, and contain too many alleged incidents
(many without dates) to respond to.” Id.
Because plaintiff does not address Interrogatory 16 in his
motion to compel, see generally Doc. #89, the Court considers
any claims relating to Interrogatory 16 abandoned. The Court
further sustains defendants’ objections that as currently
phrased, Interrogatory 16 is overbroad and seeks irrelevant

24

information. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff seeks to
compel an answer to Interrogatory 16, any such request is
DENIED.
g. Interrogatory 17
Plaintiff next seeks to compel answers to Interrogatory 17:
Identify each and every video camera, monitoring the
areas or locations relevant to the operative time
periods and housing units identified in the Complaint,
including: (a) Any internal identifier number used by
the DOC for identification or each cameras, and; (b) The
housing unit or location in which each camera is located,
and; (c) The area of each housing unit or location
monitored by such camera, and; (d) The individual staff
member responsible for the maintenance and preservation
of the video footage from each such camera, and if
different, the individual staff member from whom such
footage may be obtained or subpoenaed.
Doc. #89 at 11-12. Defendants object to each subpart on the
grounds that the “request does not pertain to relevant material
and is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) and could implicate
safety and security concerns.” Id.12 In clarifying their
objections to subparts (a) through (c), defendants have stated:
“This request for the location and information pertaining to
security cameras jeopardizes DOC’s safety and security.” Doc.

Defendants previously objected on the grounds that the request
exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33.
See Doc. #89 at 11-12. Defendants appear to have abandoned this
objection in their briefing and clarification of their
objections. See generally Doc. ##103, 103-5. Accordingly, the
Court will not consider this aspect of defendants’ objections.
12

25

#103-5 at 10-11. With respect to subpart (d), defendants have
clarified, notwithstanding their original objection that
“Captain Rivera and his staff in the intelligence office are
responsible for storing and maintaining the videos that are
preserved from stationary cameras at the facility.” Doc. #103-5
at 11.
In support of this request, plaintiff directs the Court to
his response to Interrogatory 9(a), which takes issue with the
substance of defendants’ objections and further states that this
“request is valid in its substance and material.” Doc. #89 at 7,
12. In addition to relying on their clarified objections,
defendants state there are “obvious safety concerns for
revealing such sensitive information regarding DOC’s security
cameras, such as an inmate discovering which areas in the
facility are outside the camera’s view[.]” Doc. #103 at 8.
The Court rejects plaintiff’s argument that defendants’
objections are inadequate, in light of the subsequently provided
clarification. As to whether Interrogatory 17 seeks relevant
information, the Court infers that plaintiff seeks that
information to formulate further discovery requests for
videographic evidence. However, defendants have represented that
there are “no saved video recordings from the stationary cameras
in the plaintiff’s unit on the days of the alleged incidents.”
Doc. #103 at 6. Accordingly, any future requests for
26

videographic evidence relating to plaintiff’s unit on the days
of the alleged incidents would be futile. Further, Interrogatory
17 as phrased is overbroad as it encompasses cameras that are
not related to the enforcement of the policy against plaintiff
specifically. Accordingly, the Court sustains defendants’
objections and DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel as to
Interrogatory 17. However, on or before September 15, 2017, at
least one defendant shall provide a verified response to
Interrogatory 17(d).
h. Interrogatory 19
Plaintiff next seeks to compel answers to Interrogatory 19:
Identify each and every handout, posting, videos,
contract, notice, agreement, warning or Administrative
Directive, initiated in accordance with, or conformance
with, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), at
MacDougall, and the substance thereof, include the
location or manner of each disclosure, to the inmate
population.
Doc. #89 at 14. Defendants object, in pertinent part, that “this
request does not pertain to relevant material and is outside the
scope of 26(b)(1) and is overly broad.” Id. Defendants have
clarified:
In July of 2016, there were almost 1500 inmates in the
MacDougall building. In addition to the overly broad and
vague language describing the materials sought in your
request, it would be irrelevant, immaterial, and overly
broad to identify every “disclosure” and the manner of
each disclosure to every inmate in the building. Please
narrow your request.

27

Doc. #103-5 at 13. In support of his motion to compel answers to
Interrogatory 19, plaintiff refers the Court to “position
statements 2, 4, 9 and 17[.]” Doc. #89 at 15.13 Defendant
responds that plaintiff has failed to provide any reason why the
PREA materials are relevant to the case. Defendants nevertheless
have produced “PREA documents, including the MWCI inmate
handbook, the PREA inmate housing poster, the PREA video
acknowledgment form, the PREA stencil, and the PREA video ‘What
you need to know’ (defendants would permit plaintiff to view
this video at his request).” Doc. #103 at 8-9.
As currently framed, the Court agrees that Interrogatory 19
is overly broad in temporal and substantive scope and not likely
to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Further, although
plaintiff points the Court to certain position statements
relating to various requests, he fails to articulate how the
information sought in this specific request is relevant to his
claims. Plaintiff also does not articulate how the materials
already produced by defendants in response to this Interrogatory
are inadequate. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS defendants’
objections to this request, as clarified, and DENIES plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to Interrogatory 19.

The Court reincorporates herein its prior discussion of
plaintiff’s “position statements” as to Interrogatories 2, 4, 9
and 17.
13

28

i. Interrogatory 21
Plaintiff next seeks to compel answers to Interrogatory 21:
Identify any and all photographs or video camera footage
of the cells either in the expansion area of MacDougall
known as the “Green Mile,” or in the main building
including: (a) Q Pod; (b) N Pod; (c) O Pod; (d) P Pod;
(e) H-I Pod.
Doc. #89 at 15-16. Defendants object to each of Interrogatory
21’s subparts, in pertinent part, as follows: “[T]his request
does not pertain to relevant material and is outside the scope
of Rule 26(b)(1) and is overly broad. This request is not an
appropriate interrogatory as it is more akin to a production
request.” Id. Defendants have clarified:
The defendants object because this request does not seek
relevant and material information and is overly broad.
For example, this request does not pertain to specific
time frames, is not limited to cells occupied by the
plaintiff, and is not narrowed to the alleged incidents
when staff enforced the policy prohibiting “privacy
sheets” against the plaintiff.
Doc. #89-1 at 17; see also Doc. #103-5 at 15. In support of this
request, plaintiff refers the Court to “position statements 2,
4, 9 and 17[.]” Doc. #89 at 17.14 In addition to contending that
plaintiff has failed to proffer the relevance of the requested
information, defendants further represent that they have advised
plaintiff “that the facility has confirmed that there are no

The Court reincorporates herein its prior discussion of
plaintiff’s “position statements” as to Interrogatories 2, 4, 9
and 17.
14

29

saved video recordings from the stationary cameras in the
plaintiff’s unit on the days of the alleged incidents.” Doc.
#103 at 9.
As currently framed, Interrogatory 21 is overbroad in both
temporal and substantive scope. It is not limited to the time
surrounding the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim, and
there is no indication that plaintiff was housed in the areas
requested. Although defendants represent that “the facility has
confirmed that there are no saved video recordings from the
stationary cameras in the plaintiff’s unit on the days of the
alleged incidents[,]” Doc. #103 at 9, defendants make no
representations regarding whether there are any photographs or
hand-held video recordings of plaintiff’s cell taken on or
around the dates in question. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, in
part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Interrogatory 21. On or
before September 15, 2017, at least one defendant shall answer
Interrogatory 21 as reframed by the Court: For each of the cells
in which plaintiff was housed from August 2012 through September
2014, identify whether any photographs or hand-held video
recordings exist which depict those cells as empty units and/or
reflect the placement of a privacy sheet, and if so, provide a
brief description of the photograph and/or recording’s contents,
including the approximate date on which the photograph and/or
recording was taken.
30

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS,
in part, and DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Doc. #89].
III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production [Doc. #88]
Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his requests for
production dated August 25, 2016, which were directed to all
defendants. [Doc. #88]. Plaintiff takes issue with the
“boilerplate objections” asserted by defendants and contends
that defendants’ responses were untimely. See Doc. #88 at 1.15
Defendants respond that the parties have met and conferred on
several occasions, and that on March 24, 2017, counsel for
defendants hand-delivered to plaintiff “clarifications” of
defendants’ objections in an effort to resolve any discovery
disputes. See Doc. #103 at 2; see also Doc. #103-6. Counsel for
defendants represents that following these several meet and
confers, the parties were able to resolve many of the disputes,
but that plaintiff continues to seek responses to the following
Requests: 2-4, 7-10, 14-17, 19, 20, 22, and 23. See Doc. #103 at
2. The Court will address each contested request in turn.

For reasons previously stated, the Court rejects any arguments
advanced for the proposition that defendants’ objections are
waived as untimely, and that the objections consist of
inadequate boilerplate. See Section II.a., supra.
15

31

a. Request 2
Request 2 seeks: “The most recent identification
photographs taken by the employer of each individual officer who
was present at the incident(s) described in the complaint.” Doc.
#88 at 3. Defendants object that the “request does not pertain
to relevant material and is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1),
is overly broad and vague, and implicates safety and security
concerns.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 3. Defendants have
clarified
that such photographs are irrelevant and immaterial to
the plaintiff’s claims regarding the alleged policy. The
plaintiff’s reference to officers “present at the
incidents” is also vague. Moreover, such photographs
could be used to intimidate staff and jeopardize the
facility’s safety and security.
Doc. #103-6 at 3. Plaintiff responds that the photographs are
“relevant and necessary to assure the plaintiff he is
referencing the correct defendant and goes to identity of the
defendant and absence of mistake therein.” Doc. #88 at 3.
Plaintiff also refers the Court to “position statements 1 above,
and 2, 4, 9, and 17 of plaintiffs Motion To Compel Responses To
Plaintiff Interrogatories as incorporated here by reference[.]”
Id.16

From here forward, the Court reincorporates herein its prior
discussion of plaintiff’s “position statements” as to
Interrogatories 2, 4, 9 and 17.
16

32

The Court DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as
to Request 2 because it is vague and overbroad. However, the
Court finds that plaintiff’s request, if narrowed, seeks
relevant information. Specifically, in the Ruling dismissing
Jane Doe as a defendant, Judge Thompson provided that “[i]f
plaintiff can provide service information for th[is]
defendant[], he may move to reopen the claims against [her].”
Id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request, as narrowed below, is
relevant to identifying the “Jane Doe” defendant originally
named in the Complaint, but later dismissed by Judge Thompson
for failure to timely identify and effectuate service upon her.
See Doc. #1, Complaint at ¶65; see also Doc. #63 at 22.
Therefore, on or before September 15, 2017, defendants
shall permit plaintiff to inspect the most recent identification
photographs of all female correction officers working on June
21, 2014, at the location of the incident alleged in paragraph
65 of the Complaint. If plaintiff identifies one of the
photographs as Jane Doe, counsel for defendants shall provide
plaintiff with that person’s name. See, e.g., Medina v.
Gonzalez, No. 08CV01520(BSJ)(KNF), 2010 WL 3744344, at *17
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2010) (noting the court’s prior order
requiring defendants to produce “photographs — along with the
name of the corrections official photographed — of all
correction officials working on the day of, and in places where,
33

the incident occurred, exclusive of the defendants known to”
plaintiff). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to
Request 2 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.17
b. Request 3
Request 3 seeks: “Any and all materials used or relied upon
by the defendant in preparing answers to any of the plaintiff’s
interrogatories.” Doc. #88 at 4 (sic). Defendants responded:
“See objections in defendants’ responses to interrogatories.
Objection to the extent this request seeks attorney-client
privilege material. Notwithstanding, the defendants have
provided records referenced in the interrogatory responses.”
Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 3. Defendants have clarified:
Notwithstanding
the
defendants’
attorney-client
privileged materials, such as email communications
between the defendants and their attorney to supply
responses, the defendants will provide an updated
response to this production request for documents relied
upon in answering the plaintiff’s interrogatories. Such
documents may be redacted if DOC deems it necessary for
safety and security reasons.
Doc. #103-6 at 3. Defendants contend that they “do not dispute
the request” and that their “only objection is to producing
attorney-client privilege materials as well as non-redacted

Permitting plaintiff to inspect these photographs, rather than
to retain copies, mitigates the security concerns raised by
defendants.
17

34

materials that could implicate safety and security concerns.”
Doc. #103 at 10 (sic).
In light of this representation, the Court DENIES, as moot,
plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request 3. However, to the
extent defendants have not already done so, on or before
September 15, 2017, defendants shall produce to plaintiff a log
of any and all documents withheld on the basis of the attorneyclient or work product privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(5)(A)(i)-(ii) (“When a party withholds information
otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is
privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
material, the party must: (i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or
tangible things not produced or disclosed--and do so in a manner
that, without revealing information itself privileged or
protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.”); see
also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) (“In accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b), when a claim of privilege or work product protection
is asserted in response to a discovery request for documents ...
the responding party asserting the privilege or protection shall
serve on all parties a privilege log containing [five categories
of information].”). Defendants shall also identify any documents
disclosed that have been redacted due to safety or security
concerns. Because defendants have been ordered to supplement
35

their answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories, the Court reminds
defendants of their “continuing obligation ... to supplement
prior discovery responses based on later acquired information
when the party learns of its existence and materiality.” Robbins
& Myers, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 274 F.R.D. 63, 79 (W.D.N.Y.
2011) (collecting cases); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).
c. Request 4
Request 4 seeks: “The names and addresses of all persons
who are or may be witnesses to any of the events which are the
subject of this lawsuit or any defense being offered by the
defendant.” Doc. #88 at 4. Defendants object: “This is not a
proper production request, is overly broad, and implicates
safety and security concerns to the extent that the plaintiff
seeks home addresses.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 4.
Defendants have clarified:
Defendants object to a production request for the names
and addresses of “all persons who are or may be
witnesses” to the “subject of this lawsuit or of any
defense being offered by the defendant” on the basis
that it is overly broad. Specifically, the complaint
contains allegations regarding a policy at MacDougall
Walker CI, the alleged reasons for the policy, the
implementation
of
a
policy,
policies
at
other
correctional facilities, approximately 28 incidents
regarding staff enforcing the policy against the
plaintiff (with dates), several incidents involving
staff enforcing the policy against the plaintiff
(without dates), the “routine” enforcement of the policy
against
non-party
inmates
(without
dates),
the
plaintiff’s medical problems, and other events that span
over two years. Similarly, the plaintiff’s reference to
individuals who “may be witnesses” calls for speculation
36

and is overly vague. Moreover, this is not a proper
production request and is more akin to an interrogatory.
The defendants also object to the extent that the
plaintiff seeks home addresses because of safety and
security concerns.
Doc. #103-6 at 4. Plaintiff contends that he does not seek the
home addresses of witnesses, and further relies on “position
statements 1 and 2 above, and 2, 4, 9, and 17 in plaintiffs
Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses dated March 24, 2017.”
Doc. #88 at 4 (sic).
Request 4 is better framed as an interrogatory. Some of the
information sought by Request 4 is also requested in plaintiff’s
interrogatories, which are not contested. See, e.g., Doc. #103-5
at 3 (“Interrogatory 5: Identify all persons known to you who
were present at the time of each incident alleged in the
Complaint or who observed or witnessed all or part of the
incident.”). Nevertheless, rather than compel defendants to
produce the names and addresses of all persons who are or may be
witnesses, the Court will require defendants to provide
plaintiff with the information typically required by Rule
26(a)(1)’s initial disclosures.18 Specifically, on or before
September 15, 2017, defendants shall provide plaintiff with “the

Because plaintiff is currently incarcerated and proceeding as
a self-represented party, this action was exempted from Rule
26’s initial disclosure requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(B)(iv).
18

37

name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each
individual likely to have discoverable information -- along with
the subjects of that information -- that the disclosing party
may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would
be solely for impeachment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A).
Defendants may use the business address and phone number for the
individuals identified. To the extent plaintiff seeks a list of
trial witnesses, this information will be provided to plaintiff
when the parties formulate their joint trial memorandum, should
this case reach that point. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, in
part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request 4.
d. Request 7
Request 7 seeks: “Any and all recordings of any portion of
the incident alleged in the Complaint or of any injuries
inflicted upon any person, including the plaintiff and the
defendants, at the time of the said incident.” Doc. #88 at 5.
Defendants responded: “Objection. This request does not pertain
to relevant material and is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1).
Moreover, this is overly broad and vague.” Id.; see also Doc.
#103-6 at 5. Defendants have clarified:
Defendants object to this request because it is overly
broad, seeks irrelevant information, and is overly
vague. The plaintiff refers to the “incident alleged in
the
complaint,”
however,
the
complaint
contains
allegations regarding a policy at MacDougall Walker CI,
the alleged reasons for the policy, the implementation
of a policy, policies at other correctional facilities,
38

approximately 28 incidents regarding staff enforcing the
policy against the plaintiff (with dates), several
incidents involving staff enforcing the policy against
the plaintiff (without dates), the “routine” enforcement
of the policy against non-party inmates (without dates),
the plaintiff’s medical problems, and other events that
span over two years. As such, this request is overly
vague and broad. Furthermore, the request for “any and
all” recordings of any injuries suffered by a defendant
over span of several years that is unrelated to any
incident involving the plaintiff is irrelevant and
immaterial to this case and constitutes and invasion of
the defendants’ personal privacy.
Doc. #103-6 at 5-6 (sic). In support of his motion to compel as
to Request 7, plaintiff again directs the Court to his “position
statements 1 and 2 above, and 2, 4, 9, and 17 in Plaintiffs
Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses dated March 24, 2017.”
Doc. #88 at 6 (sic). Defendants respond:
Notwithstanding their objections, the defendants have
already indicated to the plaintiff that the facility has
confirmed there are no saved video recordings from the
stationary cameras in the plaintiff’s unit on the days
of the alleged incidents and no incident reports or
disciplinary reports pertaining to the alleged incidents
when the defendants ordered the plaintiff to remove his
cell obstructions.
Doc. #103 at 12.
The Court generally sustains defendants’ objections for
reasons stated in defendants’ clarification. In light of
defendants’ representations concerning the existence of
stationary video recordings, and incident and disciplinary
reports, the Court DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel
as to Request 7 as currently framed. Defendants’

39

representations, however, constitute an “answer” which, pursuant
to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires a
signature under oath by the responding party. See Napolitano v.
Synthes USA, LLC, 297 F.R.D. 194, 200 (D. Conn. 2014)
(supplemental response to request for production, which stated
that all documents had been produced, was “an answer” that
required signature under oath by party). Accordingly, on or
before September 15, 2017, at least one defendant shall provide
an amended response to Request 7 which sets forth defendants’
representations regarding the existence of the video recordings,
and incident and disciplinary reports, in a writing signed under
oath.
However, defendants have not made any representations
concerning the existence of hand-held video recordings. On or
before September 15, 2017, defendants shall permit plaintiff to
inspect any hand-held video recordings identified in response to
Interrogatories 14 and 21. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, in
part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to request 17.
e. Request 8
Request 8 seeks: “Any and all photographs of any scene of
events described or referred to in the Complaint.” Doc. #88 at
6. Defendants responded: “Objection. This request does not
pertain to relevant material and is outside the scope of Rule
26(b)(1). Moreover, this is overly broad, vague, and unduly
40

burdensome.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 6. Defendants have
clarified:
The plaintiff’s reference to the “scene of the events
described or referred to in the Complaint” is vague in
that it does not identify any specific area, i.e., a
cell, a unit, a building, or the entire facility.
Moreover, it is overly broad and irrelevant because the
allegations in the complaint span several years and
include inter alia incidents involving the enforcement
of the alleged policy against non-party inmates.
Doc. #103-6 at 6. Plaintiff again relies on his “position
statements 1 and 2 above, and 2, 4, 9 and 17 in Plaintiffs
Motion To Compel Interrogatory Responses dated March 24, 2017.”
Doc. #88 at 6 (sic). Defendants respond that notwithstanding
their objections, they have represented that “the facility has
confirmed that there are no saved video recordings from the
stationary cameras in the plaintiff’s unit on the days of the
alleged incidents.” Doc. #103 at 13. Defendants do not, however,
indicate whether there are saved photographs of plaintiff’s cell
on or around the dates of the alleged incidents.
As currently framed, Request 8 is overly broad and
encompasses information that is not relevant to plaintiff’s
claims as it potentially implicates any photograph taken in or
around plaintiff’s cell from August 2012 to September 2014,
which would not relate to plaintiff’s asserted claims –- for
example, if an incident occurred in plaintiff’s cell that only
involved his cellmate. Accordingly, the Court sustains

41

defendants’ objections on the grounds of over breadth and
vagueness. Nevertheless, on or before September 15, 2017,
defense counsel shall permit plaintiff to inspect any
photographs identified in response to Interrogatory 21.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, in part, plaintiff’s motion to
compel as to Request 8.
f. Request 9
Request 9 seeks: “Any and all photographs, films or
videotapes of any defendant, or other participants in, or other
witness to any of the events which are the subject of this
lawsuit or any of the said events themselves or of the scene of
any such events.” Doc. #88 at 6. Defendants responded:
“Objection. This request does not pertain to relevant material
and is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1). Moreover, this is
overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and could implicate
security concerns.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 6. Defendants
have clarified:
Defendants object to this request because it is overly
broad
and
does
not
seek
relevant
materials.
Specifically, a request for “photographs, films or
videotapes” of defendants or witnesses to “any of the
events which are subject of this lawsuit” is not narrowed
to the policy of prohibiting “privacy sheets” and would
encompass photographs that are not even associated with
the defendants’ employment. Similarly, the request for
“photographs, films or videotapes” of the “events
themselves or of the scene of any such events” is overly
broad and seeks irrelevant information because the
complaint encompasses events spanning several years and
includes incidents involving non-party inmates that
42

would likely have occurred through the entire facility.
Additionally, the plaintiff’s reference to the “scene of
any such events” is overly vague. Moreover, it would be
an undue burden to locate such items.
Doc. #103-6 at 6. In support of his motion to compel, plaintiff
again relies on his “position statements 1 and 2 above, and 2,
4, 9 and 17 in Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Interrogatory
Responses dated March 24, 2017.” Doc. #88 at 7 (sic).
The Court sustains defendants’ objections that Request 9 is
vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome for the reasons stated in
defendants’ clarification. Additionally, plaintiff proffers no
basis for how the pictures of witnesses to the events described
in the Complaint are relevant to his claims. Request 9 is also
duplicative of plaintiff’s previous requests seeking similar
photographs and videos. See, e.g., Requests 2, 7, 8.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request 9 is
DENIED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (“On motion or on its
own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it
determines that: the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative
or duplicative[.]”).
g. Request 10
Request 10 seeks: “Any and all tangible materials, written
materials, or other items which may be offered as exhibits at
the trial of this case.” Doc. #88 at 7. Defendants responded:

43

“Objection. This request does not pertain to relevant material
and is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1). Moreover, this is
overly broad. Notwithstanding this objection, defendants will
disclose exhibits in accordance with court’s deadline.” Id.
(sic); see also Doc. #103-6 at 7. Defendants have clarified that
“[i]n addition to the objections above, it is overly broad and
vague to request items that ‘may’ be offered at trial, which
could include virtually any evidence.” Doc. #103-6 at 7. In
support of his motion to compel, plaintiff again relies on his
“position statements 1 and 2 above, and 2, 4, 9 and 17 in
Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Interrogatory Responses dated March
24, 2017.” Doc. #88 at 7 (sic).
Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request 10 is DENIED, as
premature. Should this matter reach the trial-ready stage, Judge
Thompson will issue a pre-trial order which will set the
deadlines by which the parties are to exchange exhibits.19 See,
e.g., Pouliot v. Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc., No.
3:02CV1302(DJS), 2004 WL 1368869, at *3 (D. Conn. June 14, 2004)
(“[T]he court does not compel Pouliot’s disclosure of
his trial exhibits at this time. This request could be unduly

A party may be precluded from introducing testimonial or
documentary evidence that was not properly disclosed during the
course of discovery. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii).
19

44

burdensome in light of the uncertain future date of a trial. The
parties will have adequate time to review the various pieces of
evidence that are designated for exhibition prior to the start
of trial.”).
h. Request 14
Request 14 seeks: “Any civilian complaint or internal
disciplinary record identified in response to Interrogatory #9.”
Doc. #88 at 8. Defendants responded: “Objection. See objection
to Interrogatory #9. Moreover, this request is overly vague.”
Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 8.
In light of the Court’s ruling as to plaintiff’s
Interrogatory 9, the Court GRANTS, in part, plaintiff’s motion
to compel as to Request 14. Defendants shall produce copies of
any grievances, complaints or disciplinary reports identified in
response to Interrogatory 9. To the extent these documents
reflect the names of third parties or any other sensitive
information, defendants may redact that information. To the
extent defendants have any additional safety or security
concerns regarding the production of such documents, any such
concerns may be alleviated by an appropriate protective order.
i. Request 15
Request 15 seeks: “Any and all statements or witnesses to
any event relevant to this Complaint or any defense being
offered to the Complaint.” Doc. #88 at 8. Defendants responded:
45

“Objection. This request does not pertain to relevant material
and is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1). Moreover, this is
overly broad, vague, and not appropriate for a production
request as it is more akin to an interrogatory.” Id.; see also
Doc. #103-6 at 8-9. Defendants have clarified:
This request is overly broad in that it seeks “relevant”
“statements and witnesses” in a case where the complaint
contains allegations regarding a policy at MacDougall
Walker CI, the alleged reasons for the policy, the
implementation
of
a
policy,
policies
at
other
correctional facilities, approximately 28 incidents
regarding staff enforcing the policy against the
plaintiff (with dates), several incidents involving
staff enforcing the policy against the plaintiff
(without dates), the “routine” enforcement of the policy
against
non-party
inmates
(without
dates),
the
plaintiff’s medical problems, and other events that span
over two years.. Moreover, the plaintiff’s use of
“relevant” is also overly vague and broad.
Doc. #103-6 at 9 (sic). In support of his motion to compel,
plaintiff again relies on his “position statements 1 and 2
above, and 2, 4, 9 and 17 in Plaintiffs Motion To Compel
Interrogatory Responses dated March 24, 2017.” Doc. #88 at 8
(sic). Defendants contend that they “have already indicated to
the plaintiff that there are no incident reports or disciplinary
reports pertaining to the alleged incidents when staff ordered
the plaintiff to remove his cell obstructions.” Doc. #103 at 15.
The Court sustains defendants’ objections that Request 15
is vague and better framed as an interrogatory. The Court has
already ordered defendants to make disclosures described in Rule

46

26(a)(1) to plaintiff, which will identify each person with
discoverable information. Although defendants represent that
“there are no incident reports or disciplinary reports
pertaining to the alleged incidents when staff ordered the
plaintiff to remove his cell obstructions[,]” such a response is
too narrowly drawn. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, in part,
plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request 15. On or before
September 15, 2017, at least one defendant shall respond to
Request 15, as follows: Produce any and all written statements
which relate to the allegation that defendants ordered plaintiff
to remove the privacy sheet on the specific dates alleged in the
Complaint. To the extent there are no documents responsive to
this re-phrased request, at least one defendant shall provide a
verified response stating: “None.” At least one defendant shall
additionally amend his or her response to include a written
verification that “there are no incident reports or disciplinary
reports pertaining to the alleged incidents when staff ordered
the plaintiff to remove his cell obstructions[,]” as such a
representation is akin to an “answer,” which requires
verification. See Napolitano, 297 F.R.D. at 200.
j. Request 16
Request 16 seeks:
Any and all police records, police reports, C.I.R.
reports,
case/incident
reports,
internal
affairs
records, Detective Bureau records, medical records,
47

accident records, wagon records, booking records, cell
block records, etc., concerning the plaintiff, any
defendant or the subject matter of this lawsuit.
Doc. #88 at 9. Defendants responded: “Objection. This request
does not pertain to relevant material and is outside the scope
of Rule 26(b)(1). Moreover, this is overly broad and vague and
could implicate safety and security concerns.” Id.; see also
Doc. #103-6 at 9. Defendants have clarified:
This request is overly broad because it is seeks
materials that are unrelated to this lawsuit, i.e.,
enforcing a policy prohibiting “privacy sheets.”
Moreover, this request seeks information, such as the
defendants’ medical records, that are irrelevant and
immaterial to this case. Moreover, this request contains
vague terms such as “police records,” “C.I.R. records,”
“case/incident reports,” “Detective Bureau records,”
etc. Furthermore, this request could implicate safety
and security concerns to the extent it seeks personal
information or personnel records for the defendants.
Doc. #103-6 at 9-10 (sic). In support of his motion to compel,
plaintiff again relies on his “position statements 1 and 2
above, and 2, 4, 9 and 17 in Plaintiffs Motion To Compel
Interrogatory Responses dated March 24, 2017.” Doc. #88 at 9
(sic). In their opposition, defendants again represent that they
“have already indicated to the plaintiff that there are no
incident reports or disciplinary reports pertaining to the
alleged incidents when staff ordered the plaintiff to remove his
cell obstructions.” Doc. #103 at 15.
The Court sustains defendants’ objections that Request 16
is generally overbroad, vague, and seeks information that is not
48

relevant to the claims asserted in this matter. It appears that
Request 16 is a “form” request for production that would
typically be used in a civil rights action against a police
department, and has not been tailored to the claims in this
case. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s allegation that
enforcement of the policy at issue led to his suffering from
persistent constipation, on or before September 15, 2017,
defendants shall produce plaintiff’s medical records from August
2012 through December 2014 which relate to plaintiff’s
allegations of constipation. At least one defendant shall also
amend his or her response to Request 16 to include a written
verification that “there are no incident reports or disciplinary
reports pertaining to the alleged incidents when staff ordered
the plaintiff to remove his cell obstructions[,]” as such a
representation is akin to an “answer,” which requires
verification. See Napolitano, 297 F.R.D. at 200. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS, in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to
Request 16.
k. Request 17
Request 17 seeks: “Any and all police records concerning
internal disciplinary procedures, regardless of the outcome, to
which the defendant has been subjected while employed as a
correction officer.” Doc. #88 at 9. Defendants responded:
“Objection. This request does not pertain to relevant material
49

and is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1). Moreover, this is
overly broad, vague, and could implicate safety and security
concerns.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 10. Defendants have
clarified that they
object to this request because it is not limited to
records concerning the defendants’ alleged enforcement
of the policy prohibiting “privacy sheets.” Moreover,
the request for “police records concerning internal
disciplinary procedures” is overly vague and could
potentially implicate safety and security concerns.
Doc. #103-6 at 10. In support of his motion to compel, plaintiff
again relies on his “position statements 1 and 2 above, and 2,
4, 9 and 17 in Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Interrogatory
Responses dated March 24, 2017.” Doc. #88 at 9 (sic).
The Court finds that Request 17 is overbroad as it is not
limited in temporal or substantive scope. Additionally, the
Court has already ordered defendants to produce certain records
regarding disciplinary history, as narrowed by the Court.
Therefore Request 17 is duplicative of plaintiff’s other
requests, and the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel as
to Request 17. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (“On motion or
on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of
discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if
it determines that: the discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative[.]”).

50

l. Request 19
Request 19 seeks: “Any and all electronic or photographic
record identified in response to Interrogatory #14.” Doc. #88 at
10. Defendants responded: “Objection. See objection to
Interrogatory #14.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 11. The Court
GRANTS, in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request 19.
As previously ordered in connection with Request 7, see Section
III.d., supra, on or before September 15, 2017, defendants shall
permit plaintiff to inspect any hand-held video recordings
identified in response to Interrogatory 14.
m. Request 20
Request 20 seeks: “Any and all electronic, photographic or
video recording from each and every camera identified in
response to Interrogatory #17, for the operative time period and
locations identified in the complaint.” Doc. #88 at 10.
Defendants responded: “Objection. See objection to Interrogatory
#17. In addition, this request is overly broad.” Id.; see also
Doc. #103-6 at 11. Defendants have clarified that they
object to this request as being overly broad because it
is not limited to the incidents when the defendants
allegedly ordered the plaintiff to remove his “privacy
sheet,” and instead seeks all recordings from cameras
spanning several years. Notwithstanding this objection,
the defendants did not identify any cameras in response
to interrogatory number 17.
Doc. #103-6 at 11.

51

The Court DENIES, as moot, plaintiff’s motion to compel as
to Request 20 for the reasons it denied plaintiff’s motion to
compel as to Interrogatory 17, see Section II.g., supra, and
defendants’ representation that “there are no saved video
recordings from the stationary cameras in the plaintiff’s unit
on the days of the alleged incidents[.]” Doc. #103 at 12.
n. Request 22
Request 22 seeks: “Any and all handouts, postings, videos,
contracts, notices, agreements, warnings or Administrative
Directives identified in response to Interrogatory #19, to
include the location or manner of each disclosure to the inmate
population.” Doc. #88 at 11. Defendants responded: “Objection.
See objection to Interrogatory #19. Additionally, this request
is overly vague.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 12.
The Court DENIES, as moot, plaintiff’s motion to compel as
to Request 22 for the reasons it denied plaintiff’s motion to
compel as to Interrogatory 19, see Section II.h., supra, and
based on defendants’ representation that “Defendant Warden
Chapdelaine produced PREA materials to the plaintiff, including
the MWCI inmate handbook (previously provided), the PREA inmate
housing poster, the PREA video acknowledgement form, the PREA
stencil, and the PREA video ‘What you need to know’ (defendants
would permit plaintiff to view video at his request).” Doc. #103
at 17.
52

o. Request 23
Request 23 seeks: “Any and all photographic or video camera
footage identified in response to Interrogatory #21.” Doc. #88
at 11. Defendants responded: “Objection. See objection to
Interrogatory #21. Additionally, this request is unduly
burdensome.” Id.; see also Doc. #103-6 at 12.
The Court GRANTS, in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel as
to Request 23, for the reasons it granted, in part, plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to Interrogatory 21. See Section II.i.,
supra. However, rather than order defendants to produce copies
of the photographs and hand-held video recordings identified in
Interrogatory 21, on or before September 15, 2017, defendants
shall permit plaintiff to inspect the photographs and recordings
identified in Interrogatory 21.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS,
in part, and DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Production [Doc. #88].
IV. Plaintiff’s Motion to Expand Discovery [Doc. #75]
Also pending before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion to
Expand Discovery to Allow Greater Number of Interrogatories.”
[Doc. #75]. Plaintiff’s written motion requests permission to
serve an additional 25 interrogatories on defendants. See Doc.
#75 at 1. At the March 20, 2017, discovery status conference,
plaintiff clarified that he seeks to serve an additional 22
53

interrogatories solely on defendant Warden Chapdelaine. See Doc.
#85 at 3; see also Doc. #83. Defendants have not filed a
response to plaintiff’s motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs the number and
scope of interrogatories. “Unless otherwise stipulated or
ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no
more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete
subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be
granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Rule 26(b)(2) requires that a Court
limit the frequency or extent of discovery ... if it
determines
that:
(i)
the
discovery
sought
is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
obtained from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain
the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the
proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted
by Rule 26(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Rule 26(b)(1) provides, in pertinent
part, that discovery must be “relevant to any party’s claim or
defendant and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Plaintiff proffers that he requires more than 25
interrogatories because he is “an indigent inmate” and “is
unable to conduct depositions in an attempt to perfect
discovery.” Doc. #75 at 1. At the direction of Judge Thompson,
on March 9, 2017, plaintiff filed his proposed second
54

interrogatories directed to defendant Warden Chapdelaine. [Doc.
#83].
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories
and in large part the proposed interrogatories do not comport
with the requirements of Rule 26(b)(1) and (b)(2). Most seek
irrelevant information, call for speculation, and/or are
duplicative of interrogatories previously propounded.
Additionally, the Court notes that plaintiff has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information he now seeks to obtain
from defendant Warden Chapdelaine. Plaintiff chose to serve
identical interrogatories on each of the defendants in this
matter. He could have tailored each set of interrogatories to
each specific defendant, but did not do so.
Regardless, the Court will permit plaintiff to serve
defendant Warden Chapdelaine with an additional six specified
interrogatories. Plaintiff may serve defendant Warden
Chapdelaine with the interrogatories numbered 1, 2, 3, 11, 12,
and 13 in his submission. See Doc. #83. Plaintiff shall serve
his second set of interrogatories on defendant Warden
Chapdelaine on or before August 25, 2017. Defendant Chapdelaine
shall respond to these second interrogatories in accordance with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

55

Thus, for the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS, in part,
and DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s Motion to Expand Discovery
[Doc. #75].
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, the Court:
GRANTS, in part, and denies in part, plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Production [Doc. #88]; GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in
part, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories [Doc. #89]; GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in
part, plaintiff’s Motion to Expand Discovery [Doc. #75]; and
DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to Renew and For Oral Argument [Doc.
#105].
This is not a Recommended Ruling. This is an order
regarding discovery which is reviewable pursuant to the “clearly
erroneous” statutory standard of review. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R.
72.2. As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or
modified by the district judge upon motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut this 11th day of August
2017.

/s/
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

56