Goodwine v. National RailRoad Passenger Corporation et al

Filing 137

ORDER re 127 ; 128 ; 129 ; 130 ; 131 ; 132 -- For the reasons set forth in the attached document, I deny the plaintiff's motions. I respectfully direct the defendants' counsel to serve a copy of this document on the plaintiff by certified mail, and to file proof of service no later than August 23, 2013. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 8/21/2013. (Rambaud, Dennis)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
EARL GOODWINE,
Plaintiff,
- against NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------X

ORDER

12-CV-3882 (TLM) (JO)

JAMES ORENSTEIN, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Earl Goodwine, appearing pro se, has filed a series of submissions requesting
various forms of relief. See Docket Entry ("DE") 127 through DE 133. I resolved some similar
requests for relief on the record at the conference before me on August 1, 2013, see DE 136
(transcript of proceedings) ("Tr."), but in the interest of a clear and complete record, I address each
request anew as set forth below.
1.

The plaintiff's motion for a signed response to his request for admissions from

defendant Williams, DE 127, is denied. Unlike interrogatories, the answers to which must be
signed under oath, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), (5), the rule governing requests for admissions
does not require the responding party to sign its answers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4); see also Tr.
at 42-43.
2.

I have already entered on the docket a protective order to which the parties have

agreed. See DE 116. I therefore deny the plaintiff's request to sign a second order in a form to
which the parties have not agreed. DE 128.
3.

The plaintiff's request for a "picture of the inside and when they place this lock on

the door," DE 129, is denied. The defendant has no obligation to create such a picture, and has
already satisfied its disclosure obligations with respect to records in its possession.

4.

The plaintiff seeks discovery as to whether "the defendant [sic] had received any

additional training on restraint and control tactics after they graduated from the police academy of
annually [sic]" as well as related policy. DE 133. I deny the request not only because discovery has
closed and I am satisfied that the defendants have discharged their discovery obligations, but also
because I am not satisfied that the request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any
admissible evidence relevant to the plaintiff's claims or the defendants' defenses. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii).
4.

I have previously denied the plaintiff's request for an order to compel Amtrak to

respond to his supplemental request for admissions. See Tr. at 7-8. I therefore deny the plaintiff's
renewed request, DE 130, as well as his request for sanctions based on the Amtrak's failure to
provide such responses. DE 132.
5.

The plaintiff requests summary judgment in his favor as a sanction for the

defendants' alleged spoliation of evidence. DE 131. As with his previous similar request, the
motion raises a discovery issue which I therefore address pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2. See
DE 119 at 1. I deny the motion because the plaintiff has not demonstrated any spoliation.
I respectfully direct the defendants' counsel to serve a copy of this order on the plaintiff by
certified mail, and to file proof of service no later than August 23, 2013.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 21, 2013
_
/s/
JAMES ORENSTEIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2