Milner v. Bristol et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 48 Defendants' Motion to Compel and denying, without prejudice, 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. See the attached Order for important deadlines and details. A copy of this Order has been mailed to plaintiff at his address of record.Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 10/13/2020. (Weis, Anne)
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CITY OF BRISTOL, et al.
Civ. No. 3:18CV01104(JAM)
October 13, 2020
RULING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL [Docs. #48, #62]
Pending before the Court are two motions to compel
discovery, one filed by defendants (Doc. #48) and one filed by
plaintiff (Doc. #62). For the reasons set forth below,
defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN
PART. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, without prejudice, as
Plaintiff Shawn Milner (“plaintiff”) brought this action
against the Bristol Police Department and a number of its
officers, making claims arising out of an incident that occurred
on April 11, 2018 (hereinafter, “the Incident”). See Doc. #1.
Upon initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, the Court
permitted certain claims to proceed against Bristol P.D.
Officers Kichar, Podlesney, DeMonte, and Marino (collectively,
“defendants”). See Doc. #15. The Complaint proceeds on claims
against each defendant for excessive force in violation of the
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 19
Fourth Amendment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1983, and for assault
and battery under state law. See Doc. #15 at 7.
Plaintiff alleges that on the date of the Incident, he was
a passenger in his fiancée’s car when Officer Kichar signaled
the car “to pull over without probable cause.” Doc. #1 at 12.
Officer Kichar then approached the vehicle and “instructed the
plaintiff to ‘get out of the car.’” Id. Officer Kichar “began to
grab the plaintiff in an extremely aggressive manner[,]” causing
plaintiff to fear for his safety. Id. Plaintiff tried to “create
distance between him self” and Officer Kichar and “was then
struck by a police cruiser ... driven by Defendant Podlesney.”
While plaintiff lay on the ground, he alleges, Officers
Kichar and Podlesney “climbed onto [his] back, pinning his hands
underneath” him. Id. At some point, defendants DeMonte and
Marino arrived on the scene, and began to strike plaintiff on
the back and legs. See id at 13. Plaintiff alleges that he was
eventually handcuffed, and defendants struck him “in the head
several more times.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that he lost
consciousness and suffered a serious seizure. See id. Plaintiff
was transported to the hospital by ambulance, where he was
treated for “injuries to his chin, face, back his head, and
right arm[,]” and was held “until he could be stabilized.” Id.
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 19
The parties have engaged in discovery, which has now
closed. See Doc. #37 (setting close of discovery on October 1,
2020). No dispositive motions have yet been filed. The Court
addresses the parties’ motions in turn below.
Applicable Law, Generally
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
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “[T]he burden of demonstrating
relevance remains on the party seeking discovery.” Bagley v.
Yale Univ., 315 F.R.D. 131, 144 (D. Conn. 2016) (citation
omitted), as amended (June 15, 2016); Republic of Turkey v.
Christie’s, Inc., 326 F.R.D. 394, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (same).
Once the party seeking discovery has demonstrated relevance, the
burden then shifts to “[t]he party resisting discovery ... [to]
show why discovery should be denied.” Cole v. Towers Perrin
Forster & Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79, 80 (D. Conn. 2009).
The Court notes that it exercises particular caution in
addressing cases involving self-represented litigants, and is
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 19
cognizant of the limitations necessarily imposed on incarcerated
litigants. “Though a court need not act as an advocate for pro
se litigants, in pro se cases there is a greater burden and a
correlative greater responsibility upon the district court to
insure ... that justice is done.” Davis v. Kelly, 160 F.3d 917,
922 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. #62]
Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel, addressing two
specific types of discovery: (1) “police reports (Affidavits)”
relating to the Incident, and (2) “body worn camera footage in
its entirety” for the remaining defendants. Doc. #62 at 1.
Defendants do not object to these requests on substantive
grounds; rather, they assert that they have “timely responded to
all of plaintiff’s discovery requests and have produced all
relevant documents and media in their possession to him.” Doc.
#67 at 4. Indeed, the deadline for responding to plaintiff’s
discovery requests was October 9, 2020, see Doc. #60, and the
motion to compel was filed on September 24, 2020. Thus the
motion filed September 24, 2020, was premature. The motion is
therefore DENIED, without prejudice.
If, after reviewing the disclosures received from
defendants, plaintiff has good cause to believe that he has not
received all police reports and affidavits relating to the
Incident, and all “body worn camera footage in its entirety”
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 19
capturing the Incident, he may file a renewed motion to compel
on or before October 30, 2020.
Defendants’ Motion to Compel [Doc. #48]
Defendants seek an order compelling plaintiff to provide
additional responses to certain Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents (‘RFPs’), dated June 29, 2020. See Doc.
#48-2. Plaintiff has provided responses to some of these
Interrogatories and RFPs, but has largely objected on grounds of
relevance, overbreadth, and on the theory that the information
sought is already within the possession and control of
Defendants argue that plaintiff has waived any objection to
the discovery requests, because his responses and objections
were filed on August 10, 2020, more than thirty days after the
requests were served.1 See Doc. #48-1 at 6. Defendants assert
The Court notes that the requests are dated June 29, 2020. See
Doc. #48-2. “Normally it is assumed that a mailed document is
received three days after its mailing.” Sherlock v. Montefiore
Med. Ctr., 84 F.3d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1996). The Local Rules of
this Court apply a more generous five-day mailing rule to
certain matters. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a). Mail delivered
to prisons may be further delayed by the need for security
reviews, and here the mail in question was sent during the COVID
pandemic, which has caused delays of all sorts. June 29, 2020,
was also the Monday of the holiday week leading up to the
Independence Day holiday, which could have further delayed
delivery. In any event, the earliest date that the requests can
be assumed to have been received by plaintiff would be July 2,
2020, allowing three days for mailing and 24 hours for delivery
within the prison. A receipt date of July 2, 2020, would have
made the responses due August 1, 2020, except that August 1,
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 19
that “[d]uring a telephone conversation on July 21, 2020,
plaintiff notified [defendants’] counsel that he was ill, and
indicated that he would need additional time to respond and/or
object to the defendants’ discovery requests.” Doc. #48-1 at 2.
Defendants’ counsel did not object to an extension of the
response deadline, but plaintiff never sought an extension from
the Court. See id.
The Court declines to find waiver where plaintiff is a
self-represented, incarcerated inmate, and where his responses
and objections were provided only one week late. “[A] court has
discretion to excuse the waiver depending upon the
circumstances.” Boyd v. Petralis, No. 6:16CV06286(EAW)(MWP),
2019 WL 1103852, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2019) (finding three
week delay in discovery responses insufficient to impose
waiver), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1434596
(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019). Waiver is not appropriate if “good
cause” excuses the failure to timely object. Fed. R. Civ. P.
Here, “good cause” exists to excuse plaintiff’s failure to
respond in a timely fashion, and the circumstances of the delay
do not support a finding of waiver. Plaintiff faces significant
practical difficulties in conducting discovery as an inmate in a
2020, was a Saturday, such that the deadline would automatically
be reset to August 3, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3).
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 19
maximum-security prison. Plaintiff notified defendants that he
would need more time to respond to their requests, and he filed
responses and objections promptly; thus, his conduct was not
“deliberately evasive[.]” McKissick v. Three Deer Ass’n Ltd.
P’ship, 265 F.R.D. 55, 57 (D. Conn. 2010). In these
circumstances, “the interests of justice would be best served by
allowing [plaintiff] to have an opportunity to voice [his]
objections to [defendants’] requests[.]” Id.
Accordingly, the Court will proceed to consider the merits
of the objections and the motion to compel. The Court addresses
each of the disputed requests below.2
Interrogatories 1, 3, 10, 14, 15, 16, 22, 25; RFPs 1,
2, 3, 6
Plaintiff has objected to these interrogatories and
requests for production solely on the basis that the information
sought is already in the possession of the defendants. See Doc.
#43, passim. This objection is without merit.
“[O]ne of the purposes of discovery ... is to ascertain the
position of the adverse party on the controverted issues[,]” and
“it is irrelevant that the party seeking discovery already knows
the facts as to which he seeks discovery.” S.E.C. v. Cymaticolor
Corp., 106 F.R.D. 545, 549 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citations and
Defendants do not seek any order as to Interrogatories 11, 13,
18, or 23.
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 19
quotation marks omitted). An objection that the information
sought in an interrogatory or request for production is “equally
available” to the requesting party is “insufficient to resist a
discovery request.” Charter Practices Int’l, LLC v. Robb, No.
3:12CV01768(RNC)(DFM), 2014 WL 273855, at *2 (D. Conn. Jan. 23,
2014); see also St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial
Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 514 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (An objection
that a discovery request “seeks information and documents
equally available to the propounding parties from their own
records or from records which are equally available to the
propounding parties” is “insufficient to resist a discovery
request.”). No other objection has been lodged to these
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED as to
Interrogatories 1, 3, 10, 14, 15, 16, 22, and 25. Plaintiff
shall provide responses to these Interrogatories on or before
October 30, 2020. The motion to compel is also GRANTED as to
RFPs 1, 2, 3, and 6. Plaintiff shall provide responses to these
Requests for Production on or before November 13, 2020.
Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19; RFPs 4, 8, 9
These Interrogatories and RFPs seek information regarding
plaintiff’s allegations of physical, mental, and emotional
injuries caused by the Incident; his treatment for those
injuries; and any pre-existing conditions. Plaintiff objects to
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 19
these requests for various reasons, including that the
information is already in the control of defendants; those
objections are overruled for the reasons stated above. Plaintiff
also contends that these requests are overbroad and that they
seek irrelevant information. The Court disagrees.
Plaintiff has placed his physical and mental health at
issue in this case, alleging that he “was indeed injured
physically, mentally and emotionally and continues to live in
fear of police officers due to the” Incident. Doc. #1 at 18
(sic). “By commencing this action and seeking damages for his
medical injuries, [plaintiff] has placed his relevant medical
condition at issue.” Bayne v. Provost, 359 F. Supp. 2d 234, 238
(N.D.N.Y. 2005). Therefore, information regarding plaintiff’s
alleged injuries, including the treatment he received for said
injuries, is relevant and discoverable. See Wallace v. Best Buy
Stores, L.P., No. 3:11CV00994(AWT)(DFM), 2012 WL 5503775, at *2
(D. Conn. Nov. 13, 2012) (Where plaintiff claimed damages
resulting from physical injury, “the defendant is entitled to
the plaintiff’s medical information.”).
The same is true for plaintiff’s mental health condition
and any treatment received. Courts in this Circuit recognize
that mental health treatment records are discoverable “when a
plaintiff puts his or her mental condition at issue in the
case.” Green v. St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., 252 F.R.D. 125, 127 (D.
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 19
Conn. 2008). A plaintiff puts his mental health treatment and
condition at issue when he alleges “more than a garden variety
claim for emotional distress.” Jacobs v. Connecticut Cmty. Tech.
Colleges, 258 F.R.D. 192, 196 (D. Conn. 2009). “Garden variety
claims refer to claims for compensation for nothing more than
the distress that any healthy, well-adjusted person would likely
feel as a result of being so victimized[.]” E.E.O.C. v. Nichols
Gas & Oil, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 114, 121 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff asserts more than mere garden variety emotional
distress; he alleges serious mental injuries. He contends that
“to treat the mental and psychological post traumatic stress and
anxiety resulting from the defendants misconduct the plaintiff
will require theraputic counseling[.]” Doc. #43 at 32 (sic).
Further, plaintiff alleges, “[t]he Bristol hospital reports and
discharge reports clearly state that the plaintiff must recieve
future follow up care.” Id. (sic). Plaintiff claims specific,
severe mental and psychological injuries and alleges that he
requires treatment for these injuries. Thus, plaintiff has put
his mental health condition and any treatment at issue by
asserting “more than a garden variety claim for emotional
distress.” Jacobs, 258 F.R.D. at 196.3
If plaintiff wishes to withdraw his claims for mental,
psychological and emotional harm, plaintiff need not disclose
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 11 of 19
Additionally, information regarding plaintiff’s preexisting physical and mental health conditions is relevant to
determining the scope and severity of the alleged injuries
sustained. See, e.g., Alston v. Pafumi, No. 3:09CV01978(VAB),
2016 WL 2732156, at *2 (D. Conn. May 10, 2016) (“[I]f
[plaintiff] claims that he suffered physical injuries from the
alleged assault, medical records showing that the injuries
predated the alleged assault may also be relevant.”); see also
Lewis v. Velez, 149 F.R.D. 474, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (“Past
medical records detailing [plaintiff’s] physical condition are
relevant to the extent that causation of [plaintiff’s] injuries
is in controversy.”); Green, 252 F.R.D. at 128 (Past
communications between a plaintiff and his mental health
provider are discoverable “to attempt to show that a plaintiff's
emotional distress was caused at least in part by events and
circumstances other than those at issue in the immediate
his mental health treatment records to defendants. See Green,
252 F.R.D. at 129 n.4 (noting that “withdrawal or formal
abandonment of all claims for anything beyond ‘garden variety’
emotional distress, along with explicit assurance that the
plaintiff does not intend to put [his] mental or emotional state
at issues in this case conceivably could serve to avoid” the
need for disclosure of mental health records).
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 12 of 19
The Court notes that plaintiff objects to some portions of
Interrogatory 4 as overbroad. This Interrogatory is properly
limited to injuries “sustained as a result of the incident
alleged in [the] Complaint,” Doc. #48-2 at 5, and as limited is
not overbroad. Plaintiff shall answer each subsection of this
Interrogatory with that limitation in mind.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED as to
Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 19. Plaintiff shall
provide responses to these Interrogatories on or before October
30, 2020. The motion to compel is also GRANTED as to RFPs 4, 8,
and 9. Plaintiff shall provide responses to these Requests for
Production on or before November 13, 2020.
RFP 11 asks plaintiff to execute a general Authorization to
Disclose HIPPA Protected Information. As noted above, medical
information related to plaintiff’s injuries, treatment, and preexisting conditions is relevant and discoverable. However, the
request that plaintiff grant defendants access to all medical
records, of any sort, from any time, is overbroad.
Plaintiff has been directed to respond to Interrogatories
and RFPs relating to his injuries, treatment, and pre-existing
conditions. Proper responses to these interrogatories and RFPs
will provide defendants with the medical information and records
relevant to this case. Plaintiff, as a self-represented inmate,
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 13 of 19
may face practical challenges in producing these records to
defendants. Therefore, if plaintiff is unable to produce his
medical records, or if he prefers to provide releases and permit
defendants to seek the records themselves, plaintiff may provide
defendants with targeted HIPPA releases, authorizing defendants
to access plaintiff’s medical records regarding (1) the injuries
(mental, psychological, and/or physical) he allegedly sustained
during the Incident; (2) treatment for such injuries and
resulting conditions; and (3) medical records relating to preexisting conditions for a period of ten years prior to the
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED as to
RFP 11, without prejudice. If plaintiff fails to produce his
medical records in compliance with RFPs 4, 8, and 9, as
directed, defendants may reassert their motion to compel as to
Interrogatory 12; RFP 10
Interrogatory 12 seeks information regarding any blood
tests performed on plaintiff in the 24 hours after the Incident
“to determine the presence of alcohol, drugs, or other medicine”
in his blood, Doc. #48-2 at 7, and RFP 10 seeks any records of
such testing. This information is relevant, particularly to a
defense that the use of force was necessary in response to
plaintiff’s conduct on the date of the Incident, and it is
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 14 of 19
properly limited to a 24-hour period immediately following the
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED as to
Interrogatory 12. Plaintiff shall provide a response to this
Interrogatory on or before October 30, 2020. The motion to
compel is also GRANTED as to RFP 10. Plaintiff shall provide a
response to this Request for Production on or before November
Interrogatory 2 asks plaintiff to “detail all activities
you engaged in during the twenty-four (24) hours immediately
preceding the incident alleged in your Complaint[.]” See Doc.
#48-2 at 5. Defendants argue that this request is “reasonably
limited in time and scope[.]” Doc. #48-1 at 7. The Court agrees
as to time, but finds that the scope is overbroad. Defendants
contend that “plaintiff’s conduct in that twenty-four hour
period and any interactions plaintiff had with law enforcement
officials, plaintiff’s use of alcoholic beverages,
pharmaceuticals, narcotics, or drugs, and his attempt to sell a
car is relevant.” Id. The Court disagrees that an attempt to
sell a car is relevant, and finds that plaintiff’s conduct that
day generally is not relevant or discoverable.
The Court therefore directs plaintiff to respond to the
following narrowed version of this Interrogatory: State whether,
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 15 of 19
during the 24-hour period prior to the Incident, you had any
interactions with law enforcement officials, and if so, describe
such interactions in detail. State whether, during the 24-hour
period prior to the incident, you used any alcoholic beverages,
pharmaceuticals, narcotics, or drugs, and if so, describe when
and what you used.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED, in
part, as to Interrogatory 2. Plaintiff shall provide a response
to this Interrogatory on or before October 30, 2020.
Interrogatory 17; RFP 7
Interrogatory 17 and RFP 7 ask plaintiff to provide
information related to any person he intends “to call as an
expert witness” in this case. Doc. #48-2 at 9. Discovery closed
on October 1, 2020, and plaintiff made no expert disclosures in
accordance with Rule 26(a)(2). It thus appears that these
requests are moot. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is
DENIED as to Interrogatory 17 and RFP 7.
Interrogatory 20 seeks information related to the “criminal
charges against [plaintiff] stemming from the” Incident, Doc.
#48-2 at 10, including “the court in which they were
prosecuted;” the names of the prosecutor, defense attorney, and
judge; and “the date the charges were resolved and their precise
disposition[.]” Id. Defendants state in a conclusory fashion
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 16 of 19
that they “are entitled to the information in order to prepare
their defense in this matter.” Doc. #48-1 at 11. The Court finds
that the information sought in subsections (a) and (d) of
Interrogatory 20 – seeking “the court in which they were
prosecuted” and “the date the charges were resolved and their
precise disposition” is relevant and discoverable. Doc. #48-2
at 10. The Court can conceive of no possible relevance of the
identities of the attorneys and judges involved in the
proceedings, and defendants suggest none in their briefing.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED, as to
Interrogatories 20(a) and 20(d), and DENIED as to
Interrogatories 20(b), 20(c), and 20(e). Plaintiff shall provide
responses to these Interrogatories on or before October 30,
Interrogatory 21 seeks information related to the damages,
losses, and costs plaintiff is claiming in the action. This
information is plainly relevant, and calls for slightly
different information than that offered in response to
Interrogatories 4 and 13, and in the Complaint. Accordingly,
defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED as to Interrogatory 21.
Plaintiff shall provide a response to this Interrogatory on or
before October 30, 2020.
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 17 of 19
Interrogatory 24 asks plaintiff to provide detailed
information about any occasion on which he has “ever been
arrested or convicted” of any offense. Doc. #48-2 at 11.
Defendants contend this information is relevant, pursuant to
Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for impeachment
purposes. See Doc. #48-1 at 12. Rule 609, however, does not cast
the wide net defendants suggest. Arrests are not admissible at
all for impeachment purposes under Rule 609, and only certain
prior convictions are admissible under the Rule. See Fed. R.
Evid. 609. Plaintiff expressly objected to this request as
overbroad, and yet defendants have made no effort to narrow it.
The Court will not rewrite the request on defendants’ behalf.
See, e.g., Doe v. Town of Greenwich, No. 3:18CV01322(KAD)(SALM),
2020 WL 2374963, at *8 (D. Conn. Feb. 28, 2020) (“Plaintiff has
made no effort to tailor or limit this request to information
that might conceivably be relevant[.] The Court will not
undertake that effort on plaintiff’s behalf.”).
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED as to
RFP 5 seeks plaintiff’s federal, state, and local tax
returns for each of the three years preceding the Incident.
Defendants provide no specific basis for the relevance of this
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 18 of 19
information, other than that they are entitled to it in order
“to prepare a defense[.]” Doc. #48-1 at 13.
Although income tax returns are not inherently
privileged, courts are typically reluctant to compel
their disclosure because of both the private nature of
the sensitive information contained therein and “the
public interest in encouraging the filing by taxpayers
of complete and accurate returns. To compel the
disclosure of income tax returns, a two-part test must
be satisfied: (1) the returns must be relevant to the
subject matter of the action and (2) there must be a
compelling need for the returns because the information
is not otherwise readily obtainable.
Uto v. Job Site Servs. Inc., 269 F.R.D. 209, 212 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)
(citations and quotation marks omitted). Defendants have not
established the relevance of the plaintiff’s tax returns to this
action, nor have they demonstrated a “compelling need” for
plaintiff’s tax returns. Id.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED as to
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion to compel
[Doc. #62] is DENIED, without prejudice. If plaintiff believes
that defendants have not complied with his discovery requests to
produce all of the police reports and affidavits related to the
Incident, and defendants’ body camera footage, plaintiff may
file a renewed motion to compel. Plaintiff must file any such
motion with the Court by October 30, 2020.
Case 3:18-cv-01104-JAM Document 69 Filed 10/13/20 Page 19 of 19
Defendants’ motion to compel [Doc. #48] is GRANTED, in
part, and DENIED, in part. The motion is DENIED as to
Interrogatories 17, 20(b), 20(c), 20(e), and 24, and as to
Requests for Production 5, 7, and 11.
The motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatories 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20(a), 20(d), 21, 22, and 25.
Plaintiff shall provide responses to these Interrogatories on or
before October 30, 2020. The motion is GRANTED, in part, as to
Interrogatory 2. Plaintiff shall provide a response to the
narrowed Interrogatory on or before October 30, 2020.
The motion is GRANTED as to Requests for Production 1, 2,
3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Plaintiff shall provide responses to
these Requests for Production on or before November 13, 2020.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the
imposition of sanctions. Such sanctions may include prohibiting
plaintiff from pursuing certain claims or presenting certain
evidence. Failure to comply with Court orders may also result in
dismissal of this action.
It is so ordered this 13th day of October, 2020, at New
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?