Owens v. Connecticut et al

Filing 140

ORDER: See attached ruling on the plaintiff's motion 102 to compel. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 2/6/2019. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARVIN E. OWENS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
NOVIA et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO.

3:16cv898(RNC)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
The plaintiff, who is self-represented, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Bridgeport police
officers Novia, Lazaro and Feroni concerning a May 21, 2015
incident. 1 The

operative

complaint

alleges

false

arrest

and

excessive force claims as to defendant Novia and failure to
intervene claims as to defendants Lazaro and Feroni.
before the court is the plaintiff's motion to compel.

Pending

(Doc. #102.)

The court held a lengthy oral argument on the plaintiffs'
prior motions to compel and issued a comprehensive ruling.
#96.)

The

plaintiff

subsequently

filed

the

instant

(Doc.

motion,

contending that the defendants' responses to some of the discovery
requests that the court had granted are inadequate.

In their

opposition to the plaintiff's motion, the defendants argue that

1 The

plaintiff also alleged a false arrest claim against
defendant Novia concerning his arrest on June 25, 2015. The court
dismissed this claim without prejudice. See doc. #93.

they fully complied with all the discovery requests in the court's
ruling.

(Doc. #107.)

In an effort to clarify the record, the

court ordered the defendants to "file a copy of the responses they
served and a memorandum addressing each of the requests that the
plaintiff challenges."
doc. ##130, 132.

(Doc. #123.)

The defendants did so.

See

The matter now being ripe for adjudication, the

court rules as follows:
1.

Production Request 2:

The plaintiff seeks police incident

reports for instances prior to May 21, 2015 when the Bridgeport
police responded to the plaintiff's High Ridge Drive.2
In his motion to compel,

the plaintiff

argues that

the

defendants have not produced police reports for the October 20,
2014 and November 10, 2014 incidents.
The defendants respond that no police reports exist for those
dates.

They point to their supplemental compliance in July 2018

in which they so indicate and submit the affidavit of Detective
Barbara

Gonzalez

who

conducted

the

search

for

responsive

documents. See doc. #130-2, Gonzalez Aff.
The plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.

See American

Banana Co., Inc. v. Republic National Bank of New York, N.A., No.

2The

court repeats the text of the discovery request from its
prior ruling, doc. #96, and follows the order used by the plaintiff
in his motion to compel.
2

99 CIV 1330(AGS), 2000 WL 521341, *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (the "court
cannot compel production of what does not exist").
2.

Question 4:

The plaintiff asks whether defendant Novia

responded to a call on November 10, 2014 to go to the plaintiff's
High Ridge Drive home and if so, seeks the "nature of [the] call"
and the "outcome of police response."
In the present motion, the plaintiff says that the defendants
are trying to "mislead" him by providing information for November
10, 2015, when he asked about November 10, 2014.
As they did in their Supplemental Compliance dated July 25,
2018, defendants explain that there are no records of a November
10, 2014 call and as a result they
assumed the plaintiff was referring to a matter on
November 10, 2015. Because it was assumed that [] the
date requested was November 10, 2015, information was
disclosed to the plaintiff. To be clear, no matter exists
for November 10, 2014. It has been determined that no
call c[a]me into the Bridgeport Police Department on
November 10, 2014 for 336 High Ridge Drive, therefore,
no police incident reports exist.
See doc. 130-2.
The plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
3.

Question 5:

The plaintiff seeks information that the police

dispatcher gave defendant Novia about the May 21, 2015 call to the
High Ridge address.
In

his

motion,

the

plaintiff
3

states

that

he

requests

"electronically stored audio communication between Dispatch and
defendant Novia regarding May 21, 2015 call."
The defendants explain that the 911 and dispatch recordings
with respect to May 21, 2015 incident at 336 High Ridge Drive were
saved to a USB flashdrive and produced to the plaintiff on two
occasions:

July 6, 2018 and again on July 25, 2018.

See doc.

#130-2 at 3.
The motion to compel is denied.
4.

Question 3:

The plaintiff asks whether defendant Novia was

dispatched to the plaintiff's High Ridge address before May 21,
2015 and, if so, the plaintiff asks the defendants to "provide the
nature of the call [and] the outcome of the police response."
In his motion to compel [102], the plaintiff states that the
defendants "continu[e] to mislead" as well as "fail[]to comply"
with the court's order.

Specifically, the plaintiff says that the

defendants fail to provide records for "dates of 9/16/15, 10/25/13,
5/2/16, 4/29/16, 11/10/14, 10/20/14 as well as defendants failed
to provide outcome of police response."

(Doc. #102 at 8.)

Some of the dates the plaintiff lists are not "before May 21,
2015."

The defendants provided responses as to 10/25/13, 10/20/14

and 11/20/14 – the dates that are before May 21, 2015 - in their
supplemental compliance.

See doc. #130-2.

4

The plaintiff's to compel motion is denied.
5.

Questions 7 and 8:

The plaintiff asks whether defendant Novia

told the plaintiff that there was a 911 call placed from the High
Ridge address in which a woman and child were screaming.

If so,

the plaintiff asks whether defendant Novia's statement to the
plaintiff regarding the 911 call was true.
The defendant Novia responded to the requests: "Yes. Yes, it
was true based upon facts and circumstances known[n] by Officer
Novia at the time he arrived at the scene."

(Doc. #130-1 at 6.)

The plaintiff challenges the veracity of defendant's response
that a child was screaming.

Although titled as a motion to compel,

the plaintiff requests that the court impose sanctions.
The defendants explain that their response is accurate based
on Officer Novia's recollection/perception of the CAD transmission
at the time of his arrival on the scene.
The plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
6.

Question 10:

The plaintiff asks whether defendant Novia

included the phrase "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth" in his May 21, 2015 incident report.
The defendants responded to the request as follows:

"No.

The police incident report is a form document and does not contain
that phrase." (Doc. #130-1 at 6.)

5

In his motion to compel, the plaintiff contends that as to
the phrase "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,"
he meant "did defendant Novia add all facts and/or details"; "leave
out any details or facts" and "fabricate any details."
at 11.)

(Doc. #102

Plaintiff states that he "never ask[ed] if defendant

included the phrase" and implies that the court "err[ed]" in the
wording of the request.
The court's review of the transcript reveals the following
colloquy:
THE COURT: [Y]ou're asking if the report itself uses
the words, "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth?" Is what you're asking?
MR. OWENS: Yes, you added everything that was correct,
you left nothing out, and you did not fabricate. The
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Do you want to know if it was given
under oath? Is that what you want to know, or do you
want to know if it contains those words verbatim?
MR. OWENS: If it contains those words verbatim.
(Doc. #134, Tr. at 52-53.)
The motion to compel is denied.
7.

Question 14:

Did the plaintiff on May 21, 2015 provide the

defendant with valid identification?

If yes, was it before or

after placing plaintiff in handcuffs under arrest?
The defendant responded "Yes, the plaintiff was asked for
identification.

The plaintiff was not arrested."

6

The plaintiff

complains that the response is evasive.
The defendants' response is not a model of clarity and it is
apparent that they dispute whether the plaintiff was placed under
arrest.

The

defendants

motion

shall

to

indicate

compel

is

whether

granted
the

as

follows:

plaintiff

provided

The
his

identification before or after he was handcuffed.
Additional Discovery Requests
1.

The plaintiff seeks a copy of the complaint that his ex-wife,

Staarnetta Jones, filed with the Bridgeport Police Department in
June/July 2015 against defendant Novia.
In
responded

their
that

previously
no

served

responsive

compliance,

documents

complaints Starnetta Owens filed.

exist

the
and

defendants
listed

(Doc. #130-1 at 7.)

reiterate this response in their memorandum.

the
They

(Doc. #132 at 4.)

The plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
2.

The plaintiff seeks a copy of the complaint he filed against

Officer Edward Rivera from Internal Affairs.
The defendants point to their earlier compliance in which
they provided a copy of the complaint dated 10/1/15.

(Doc. #132

at 4.)
The plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
3.

The plaintiff seeks production of statements he made to

7

Bridgeport police regarding the May 21, 2015, June 25, 2015 and
"car jacking/attempted murder" incidents. (Doc. #102 at 15.)
The plaintiff complains that the defendants did not produce
documents concerning the "car jacking/attempted murder" incident.
The defendants respond that they fully responded to the
request, pointing to their July production of a Civilian Complaint
Report. (Doc. #132 at 4.)
The plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
Case Management:

The discovery deadline has long passed.

This ruling resolves all outstanding discovery issues
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 6th day of February,
2019.
_________/s/__________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

8