Ashley v. Bridgeport et al
Filing
58
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Compel Defendant City of Bridgeport to provide Responses to Interrogatories; granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion for Extension of Time; granting in part and denying in part 52 Motion for Extension of Time. Please see the attached Order for important details and deadlines. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 4/6/18. (Tepe, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
MALCOLM O. ASHLEY
:
:
v.
:
:
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, et al.
:
:
------------------------------x
Civil No. 3:17CV00724(AWT)
April 6, 2018
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. #47] AND BRIDGEPORT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [DOC. #50; #52]
Plaintiff Malcolm O. Ashley (“plaintiff”) has filed a
motion to compel seeking responses from defendants City of
Bridgeport, Ronald Mercado, Roderick Doda, and Marie Cetti (the
“Bridgeport Defendants”)1 to certain interrogatories and a
request for production. [Doc. #47]. The Bridgeport Defendants
have filed an objection to plaintiff’s motion. [Doc. #50]. Also
pending before the Court are two motions filed by the Bridgeport
Defendants seeking an extension of time to respond to
plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production. [Doc.
#50; #52]. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS,
Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks to compel “Defendant City of
Bridgeport” to provide responses to plaintiff’s discovery
requests. Doc. #47 at 1. The Court construes plaintiff’s motion
as directed toward defendants City of Bridgeport, Ronald
Mercado, Roderick Doda, and Marie Cetti. Defendants Mercado,
Doda, and Cetti are allegedly employed by the City of Bridgeport
and the Bridgeport Defendants are all represented by the same
counsel. See Doc. #1 at 1. The Bridgeport Defendants
collectively filed an objection to the motion. See Doc. #50.
1
in part, and DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc.
#47] and GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part, the Bridgeport
Defendants’ motions for an extension of time [Doc. #50; #52].
I.
Background
On March 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel,
seeking responses from the Bridgeport Defendants to plaintiff’s
“Interrogatories and Request for Production of Electronic
video/film referenced in issued requests on 20 December 2017.”
Doc. #47 at 1 (footnote omitted). The Bridgeport Defendants
filed an objection to the motion to compel on March 21, 2018.
See Doc. #50. The Bridgeport Defendants attached a copy of
plaintiff’s interrogatories to their objection. See Doc. #50-1.
The Bridgeport Defendants also sought an extension of time
“nunc pro tunc until thirty days following the Court’s ruling on
in which to answer and/or object to the Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories and Requests for production dated December 20,
2017.” Doc. #50 at 1 (sic). On March 23, 2018, the Bridgeport
Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion for Extension of Time
indicating that “[t]he undersigned has consulted with the
plaintiff regarding the request for extension of time and the
plaintiff has indicated that he consents to the relief
requested.” Doc. #52 at 1.
~ 2 ~
II.
Legal Standard
Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states
that “a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “The motion must include a
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court
action.” Id. Local Rule 37(a) requires that the party filing a
motion to compel “file with the Court, as a part of the motion
papers, an affidavit certifying that he or she has conferred
with counsel for the opposing party in an effort in good faith
to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without
the intervention of the Court, and has been unable to reach such
an agreement.” D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(a). Local Rule 37(b)(1)
further requires that memoranda filed in support or in
opposition to a motion to compel “shall contain a concise
statement of the nature of the case and a specific verbatim
listing of each of the items of discovery sought or opposed, and
immediately following each specification shall set forth the
reason why the item should be allowed or disallowed.” D. Conn.
L. Civ. R. 37(b)(1). “Every memorandum shall include, as
exhibits, copies of the discovery requests in dispute.” Id.
~ 3 ~
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 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).
III. Discussion
A.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel the Bridgeport
Defendants to respond to his interrogatories and request for
production. See Doc. #47 at 1-2. Plaintiff argues the Court
should grant his motion because he “has in good faith conferred
with and asked the Defendant City of Bridgeport, to provide
responses[,]” but the Bridgeport Defendants have “not responded
at all.” Doc. #47 at 1-2. The Bridgeport Defendants object to
the motion to compel, arguing that “Plaintiff has filed
extensive Interrogatories and Requests for Production directed
~ 4 ~
to defendants as well as non-parties[.]” Doc. #50 at 3 (footnote
omitted).
The Bridgeport Defendants contend that “Plaintiff’s
requests for interrogatories are comprised of six
interrogatories with one-hundred and eleven subparts[,]” that
Interrogatories One, Two, Three, and Six are directed to nonparties, and that Interrogatories Seven and Eight are directed
to defendant St. Vincent’s Medical Center. Id.
Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than
25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) (emphasis added). “The interrogatories
must be answered: (A) by the party to whom they are directed; or
(B) if that party is a public or private corporation, a
partnership, an association, or a governmental agency, by any
officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to
the party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b).
Here, plaintiff directs Interrogatory One to Bridgeport
Mayor Joseph Ganim, Interrogatory Two to Armando Perez,
Interrogatory Three to Rebecca Garcia, Interrogatory Six to Juan
Vincens, Interrogatory Seven to Ryan Doss, M.D., and
Interrogatory Eight to Rebecca Ruben, M.D. See Doc. #50-1 at 116. Mr. Ganim, Mr. Perez, Ms. Garcia, Mr. Vincens, Dr. Doss, and
~ 5 ~
Dr. Ruben are not parties in this case. See Doc. #1. Therefore,
these interrogatories are improper under Rule 33, which permits
a party to serve interrogatories “on any other party[.]” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(a)(1); see also Andrulonis v. United States, 96
F.R.D. 43, 45 (N.D.N.Y. 1982) (“Based on the clear language of
the Rule, therefore, interrogatories may not be served on a
person not a party.”). The Court will not compel the Bridgeport
Defendants to answer these interrogatories, as interrogatories
“must be answered ... by the party to whom they are directed[.]”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel
is DENIED as to Interrogatories One, Two, Three, Six, Seven, and
Eight.
Interrogatories Four and Five are directed to defendant
Ronald Mercado and defendant Marie Cetti, respectively. See Doc.
#50-1 at 7-13. Interrogatory Four includes twenty-three subparts
directed to defendant Mercado and Interrogatory Five includes
eight subparts directed to defendant Cetti. See Doc. #50-1 at 713. Therefore, plaintiff has not exceeded the limit of 25
interrogatories that he may serve on each defendant. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(a)(1) (“[A] party may serve on any other party no
more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete
subparts.”). The Bridgeport Defendants do not offer any other
~ 6 ~
basis for their objection to Interrogatories Four and Five. See
Doc. #50 at 1-4.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to
Interrogatories Four and Five. Defendant Ronald Mercado shall
provide answers or objections to plaintiff’s Interrogatory Four
on or before April 20, 2018. Defendant Marie Cetti shall provide
answers or objections to plaintiff’s Interrogatory Five on or
before April 20, 2018.
Plaintiff also seeks to compel the Bridgeport Defendants to
respond to his request for production. See Doc. #47 at 1.
Plaintiff states that he seeks production of video records
“referenced and stipulated in Bridgeport Police Internal Affairs
investigation OIA Case 151-082, of the Bridgeport Police
Headquarters front desk on 4 April 2015, reviewed by senior
Internal Affairs Investigator, Sgt. Tjuana Bradley-Webb.” Id.
The Bridgeport Defendants cursorily respond that plaintiff’s
“Requests for Production [are] directed to defendants as well as
non-parties[.]” Doc. #50 at 3.
Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with the requirements of
Local Rule 37 of the District of Connecticut Local Rules of
Civil Procedure. Although plaintiff’s motion states that he “has
in good faith conferred with and asked the Defendant City of
Bridgeport to provide responses[,]” plaintiff did not file an
~ 7 ~
“affidavit certifying that he ... has conferred with counsel for
the opposing party in an effort in good faith to resolve by
agreement the issues raised by the motion without the
intervention of the Court, and has been unable to reach such an
agreement.” D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(a). Plaintiff’s motion also
fails to “include, as exhibits, copies of the discovery requests
in dispute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(1). Although the Bridgeport
Defendants attached a copy of plaintiff’s interrogatories to
their objection, the Court has not been provided with a copy of
plaintiff’s request for production by either party. Therefore,
the Court will not compel the Bridgeport Defendants to respond
to plaintiff’s request. See, e.g., Hoth v. Lantz, No.
3:10CV1081(WWE), 2012 WL 3648764, at *1 (D. Conn. Aug. 24, 2012)
(denying a motion to compel for failure to provide the required
affidavit and attach copies of the discovery requests); Williams
v. Murphy, No. 3:13CV01154(MPS), 2015 WL 1971517, at *5 (D.
Conn. May 1, 2015) (“The second motion to compel is denied for
failure to comply with Local Rule 37(a) and (b)1.”).
Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED as to the request
for production.
~ 8 ~
B.
The Bridgeport Defendants’ Motions for Extension of Time
The Bridgeport Defendants seek “an extension of time, nunc
pro tunc until thirty days following the Court’s ruling on in
which to answer and/or object to the Plaintiff’s Interrogatories
and Requests for production dated December 20, 2017.” Doc. #50
at 1 (sic). The Bridgeport Defendants argue that good cause for
an extension exists due to an “inadvertent email delivery
error[.]” Id. at 3. The Bridgeport Defendants state that “[o]n
December 20, 2017 the plaintiff sent Interrogatories and
Production Requests to Attorney Mitola[,]” who has appeared as
counsel for the Bridgeport Defendants. Id. at 2. The Bridgeport
Defendants contend that Attorney Mitola transferred the case to
Attorney Richard Kascak, but Attorney Mitola “inadvertently”
failed to transfer plaintiff’s discovery requests to Attorney
Kascak. Id. As a result, Attorney Kascak was not “made aware of
the plaintiff’s request for interrogatories and production[]”
until plaintiff filed the motion to compel currently before the
Court. Id. Both Attorney Mitola and Attorney Kascak have
appeared as counsel for the Bridgeport Defendants. See Doc. ##3,
17. The Bridgeport Defendants also argue that their “pending
Motion to Dismiss” and “the nature and sheer number of the
plaintiff’s interrogatories” constitute good cause for an
extension. See Doc. #50 at 3. The Bridgeport Defendants filed a
~ 9 ~
supplemental motion for an extension of time indicating that
plaintiff consents to the requested extension. See Doc. #52.
Local Rule 7(b) requires that “[a]ll motions for extensions
of time must be decided by a Judge and will not be granted
except for good cause.” D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b). “The good
cause standard requires a particularized showing that the time
limitation in question cannot reasonably be met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id.
The Bridgeport Defendants have not shown good cause for a
thirty day extension. The Bridgeport Defendants acknowledge that
they received plaintiff’s requests on December 20, 2017. See
Doc. #50 at 2. The alleged “inadvertent email delivery error”
does not constitute good cause, as it was the result of a
miscommunication among counsel for the Bridgeport Defendants
through no fault of plaintiff. Id. at 3. The Bridgeport
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is no longer pending; a ruling was
issued on March 26, 2018. See Doc. #54. The nature and number of
plaintiff’s requests also do not constitute good cause for a
thirty day extension. However, in light of plaintiff’s consent,
the Court will grant a brief extension.
Accordingly, the Bridgeport Defendants’ motions for an
extension of time are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
Defendant Ronald Mercado shall provide answers or objections to
~ 10 ~
plaintiff’s Interrogatory Four on or before April 20, 2018.
Defendant Marie Cetti shall provide answers or objections to
plaintiff’s Interrogatory Five on or before April 20, 2018.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS, in part,
and DENIES, in part, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. [Doc. #47].
The Court also GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part, the
Bridgeport Defendants’ motions for an extension of time. [Doc.
#50; #52].
Defendant Ronald Mercado shall provide answers or
objections to plaintiff’s Interrogatory Four on or before April
20, 2018. Defendant Marie Cetti shall provide answers or
objections to plaintiff’s Interrogatory Five on or before April
20, 2018.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 6th day of
April, 2018.
/s/
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
~ 11 ~
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?