Owens v. Connecticut et al

Filing 96

ORDER: The plaintiff's motions to compel (doc. ##79, 88, 88 ) are granted in part and denied in part; the plaintiff's motion 69 for summary judgment is denied without prejudice; dispositive motions shall be filed by 7/23/18. See attached ruling and order. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 6/21/2018. (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 MOTIONS 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

incident.1
excessive

The
force

and

Feroni

concerning

operative

complaint

alleges

claims

to

as

defendant

a

May

false

Novia

and

21,

2015

arrest

and

failure

to

intervene claims as to defendants Lazaro and Feroni.
before the court are the plaintiff's motions to compel.

Pending
(Doc.

##79, 88, 89). The written submissions are disorganized, difficult
to follow, and incomplete. In an effort to clarify the record, the
court held oral argument on June 19, 2018.

After hearing a lengthy

and comprehensive discussion of all the plaintiff's discovery
issues, the court rules as follows:
I.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #79)

1.

Production Request 1: During oral argument, the plaintiff, on

the record, revised this request to seek "supplemental" police

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.

reports for the instances before May 21, 2015 when defendant Novia
responded

to

the

plaintiff's

High

Ridge

defendants do not object to this request.
2.

Production Request 2:

Drive

address.

The

The request is granted.2

The plaintiff seeks police incident

reports for instances before May 21, 2015 when the Bridgeport
police

responded

to

the

defendants do not object.
3.

Production Request 3:

plaintiff's

High

Ridge

Drive.

The

The request is granted.
As narrowed during oral argument, the

plaintiff seeks reprimands, complaints and/or grievances contained
in the defendants' personnel files regarding allegations of false
arrest, excessive force and/or failure to intervene.
is granted in part.

The request

To the extent that any responsive documents

exist, the defendants shall submit them to the court for in camera
review.

After the in camera review, the court will determine

whether any documents must be produced.
4.

Production Request 4:

incident

report

regarding

The plaintiff seeks a 2012 police
defendant

Lazaro's

presence

at

the

plaintiff's Benham Avenue address in response to a landlord tenant
dispute.

The request is granted.

2

As to this request and all requests the court grants, the
defendants shall make a good faith effort to search and locate
responsive documents.
If, after a good faith search, the
defendants determine that no responsive materials exist, they shall
provide the plaintiff with a sworn statement to that effect. To
the extent the defendants have already produced responsive
documents, they shall provide the plaintiff with an amended
response so stating and identifying with particularity the
responsive documents.
2

5.

Production

Requests

5

and

6:

The

plaintiff

seeks

an

"electronically stored" December 24, 2015 warrant application and
December 28, 2015 incident report.
grounds of relevance.

The requests are denied on the

Information is considered relevant if "(a)

it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence
in determining the action."
demonstrating

relevance

Fed. R. Evid. 401.

is

on

the

party

"[T]he burden of

seeking

discovery."

Harnage v. Brennan, No. 3:16CV1659(AWT)(SALM), 2018 WL 2128379, at
*2 (D. Conn. May 9, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
with

the

This case concerns the plaintiff's May 2015 encounter
defendants.

The

incidents

addressed

requests 5 and 6 postdate the incident at issue.

in

production

The plaintiff has

not met his burden of showing that the requested information is
relevant to his claim.
6.

Production Request 7:

insurance

information.

The plaintiff requests the defendants'
During

oral

argument,

the

plaintiff

acknowledged that the defendants provided the information.

The

request is denied as moot.
7.

Production Request 8: The plaintiff seeks the "electronically

stored" communication between police dispatch and defendant Novia
regarding the May 21, 2015 call.

The request is granted.

3

II.

Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Doc. ##88, 89)

1.

Questions 2 and 33:

The plaintiff asks whether defendant

Lazaro, while in uniform, went to the plaintiff's home on Benham
Avenue in 2012 to address the plaintiff concerning a landlord
tenant issue.
report.

If so, the plaintiff requests a copy of the police

If there is no police report, the plaintiff asks for an

explanation why no report was filed.

The defendants do not object

to these requests and they are granted.
2.

"Followup" question:

The plaintiff asks whether defendant

Lazaro proofread and signed defendant Novia's May 21, 2015 incident
report.

The defendants do not object to this question.

The

request is granted.
3.

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."
object.
4.

The defendants do not

The request is granted.

Question 5:

The plaintiff seeks information that the police

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

The defendants do not object.

The request is

granted.

3

Although the plaintiff refers to these requests as requests
for admission, they appear to be interrogatories. The court
clarified the questions during oral argument. The ruling follows
the numbering of the questions as they appear in the plaintiff's
papers.
4

5.

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."
defendants do not object.
6.

Question 6:

The

The request is granted.

The plaintiff requests the explanation the

defendant Novia gave the plaintiff for Novia's presence at the
plaintiff's house on May 21, 2015.

The defendants do not object.

The request is granted.
7.

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.
object.
8.

The defendants do not

The requests are granted.

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 do not

object and the request is granted.
9.

Question 14 is granted absent objection.

10.

Question 15:

The plaintiff asks for the reason(s) that

defendant Novia handcuffed and arrested him on May 21, 2015.
defendants do not object.

The request is granted.

5

The

III. Additional Discovery Requests
During

oral

argument,

the

plaintiff

raised

additional

discovery requests that are not set forth in his motions.

In the

interest of efficiency, the court heard the requests and rules as
follows:
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.
object.
2.

The defendants do not

The request is granted.

The plaintiff seeks a copy of the complaint he filed against

Officer Edward Rivera from Internal Affairs. The defendants do not
object.
3.

The request is granted.

The plaintiff seeks production of statements he made to

Bridgeport police regarding the May 21, 2015, June 25, 2015 and
"car jacking/attempted murder" incidents.
object.
4.

The defendants do not

The requests are granted.

The plaintiff seeks recordings of phone calls he made to the

Bridgeport FBI concerning the May 21, 2015 and/or June 25, 2015
incidents.

The defendants do not object.

The request is granted

to the extent the defendants have any responsive
their care, custody or control.
IV.

Case Management:

materials within

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

The discovery deadline has passed.

ruling resolves the outstanding discovery issues.

The defendants'

responses are due within fourteen days of this order.

6

This

See D. Conn.

L. Civ. R. 37(d).
In light of the court's ruling granting the plaintiff's
motions to compel the aforementioned discovery requests and the
ensuing responses by the defendants, the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment (doc. #69) is denied without prejudice to avoid
piecemeal briefing.

Any new motion shall be filed by July 23, 2018

and shall comply with Rule 56 of the Federal and Local Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The defendants' motion for summary judgment also shall be
filed by July 23, 2018.
Oppositions to the summary judgment motions shall be filed
within 21 days of the filing of the motion.

See D. Conn. L. Civ.

R. 7(a)(2).
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 21st day of June,
2018.
_________/s/__________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

7