Grief et al v. Nassau County et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 65 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Contempt (which the Court construes as a motion to compel). For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Defendants' motion for a protecti ve order, herein Docket No. 65 , is denied without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for contempt, which the Court construes as a motion to compel, herein Docket No. 69 , is decided as follows: (1) Parties are directed to confer with respect to the scope of the Sheriff Sposato's interrogatories. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, they shall file a joint letter setting forth their positions within ten (10) days of this order. The letter shall also set forth three suggested agreed upon dates for this Court to hold a telephone conference. (2) At this juncture, it is clear that Defense Counsel is working to provide the responses by Wednesday, October 4, 2017. The Court hereby extends the date for Defendants to provide such responses until October 4, 2017, but will not permit any further extension absent an indication that Counsel conferred in good faith. Any requests for extensions of time must comply with this Court's rules.(3) Defendants hav e waived any objections based upon privilege.(4) Defendants are now directed to provide a specific basis for each and every redaction by October 10, 2017.(5) If Parties are unable to agree to whether documents should be deemed confidential, t hey shall confer regarding each document by October 9, 2010. If after conferring Parties are unable to reach an agreement, Defendants have until October 13, 2010 to serve upon Plaintiff and the Court the documents in dispute, along with an explanatio n as to why each item submitted should be designated as confidential. The production of such documents shall be filed in a manner consistent with the procedure set forth in the Parties' confidentiality order. Plaintiff may respond no later than October 20, 2017. Defendants may reply no later than October 27, 2017. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 10/4/2017. (Casalini, Rosalinde)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
CHRISTOPHER GRIEF,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
CV 15-7240 (ADS) (AYS)

-againstNASSAU COUNTY, SHERIFF MICHAEL
SPOSATO, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2,
and JOHN DOE 3,
individually and in their official capacities
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
ANNE Y. SHIELDS, United States Magistrate Judge:
This is a civil rights case in which Plaintiff claims to have been injured by Defendants
Nassau County, Sheriff Michael Sposato, CO Alaberto Bazante, CO Angelo Muro, CO Jaret
Carbone (collectively “Defendants”). Specifically, Christopher Grief (“Grief” or “Plaintiff”)
seeks relief for injuries received as a result of being assaulted, battered and otherwise abused at
the Nassau County Correctional Center (“NCCC”) in violation of his rights, privileges, and
immunities secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S.C. § 1983, the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Constitution and laws of the
State of New York. See Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), Docket Entry (“DE”) 67. Such
injuries are alleged to have occurred on or around September 28, 2014. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-18.
By way of background, on August 18, 2017, this Court issued an order (“August 18
Order”) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. The August
18 Order set forth specific discovery directives for both parties to follow. On September 20,
2017, Defendants moved for a protective order with regard to the interrogatories Plaintiff served
1

on Sheriff Sposato. DE 65. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff moved for contempt concerning
related issues stemming from the Court’s August 18 Order. DE 69. Plaintiff contends that
Defendants have failed to comply with the majority of the Court’s directives, and seeks specific
relief. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion for contempt as a motion to compel. The Court
now turns to each of the issues raised by Plaintiff, as well as Defendants’ motion for a protective
order.
1. Sheriff Sposato is Required to Respond to Interrogatories
In the August 18 Order, this Court ruled that Sheriff Sposato is a named Defendant and
therefore must individually verify his responses to the Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Defendants did
not ask this Court to reconsider its ruling, and, instead, over a month later, moved for a
protective order. Defendants argue that “to compel the Sheriff to respond to a set of
interrogatories to which he has no knowledge will open the door for future lawsuits to require the
same which would make it impossible for Sheriff Sposato to fulfill his obligations as Sheriff.”
DE 65 at 2. Thus, the County’s motion for a protective order seeks a ruling that it be permitted to
respond on behalf of Sheriff Sposato.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ motion for a protective order is manifestly improper,
as this Court already ruled upon the issue, and Defendants failed to timely move for
reconsideration. DE 69 at 1. Defendants argue that they merely wish to limit the scope of the
interrogatories, and Plaintiff has failed to confer regarding such issue. Indeed, Defendants assert
it was Plaintiff’s refusal to confer which prompted the filing of their motion for a protective
order. DE 71 at 1.
As Parties must confer in good faith prior to the filing of discovery motions, and, must
call the Court regarding issues when Counsel cannot agree as to discovery disputes, Defendants’
2

motion for a protective order is denied without prejudice. Parties are directed to confer with
respect to the scope of the interrogatories that Sheriff Sposato must answer. If the parties cannot
reach an agreement, they shall file a joint letter setting forth their positions within ten (10) days
of this order. The letter shall also set forth three suggested agreed upon dates for this Court to
hold a telephone conference.
2. Defendants’ Responses and Objections
This Court’s August 18 Order directed Defendants to reevaluate their objections, and
provide Plaintiff with either responsive answers and/or objections. Defendants were further
directed to confer with Plaintiff to obtain clarity rather than object on such basis. See August 18
Order.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have neither served updated responses to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, nor provided an explanation for the
lack of production of any further responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents. DE 69 at 2.
In response, Defendants explain that they have provided all responsive documents in their
possession, but, due to time constraints, were unable to provide formal supplemental responses
within the time allotted. DE 71 at 3. Defense Counsel highlights the fact that she has a reduced
work schedule, and further states she is presently supplementing the written responses and
anticipates serving same by next Wednesday (October 4, 2017). DE 71 at 1. According to
Defendants, Plaintiff has not been prejudiced in anyway by this harmless deficiency.
The Court is sympathetic to Defense Counsel’s time constraints; however, there is no
exception in the federal rules, local rules, or this Court’s rules that permit Counsel to ignore the
Court’s directives due to time constraints. The rules do, however, provide mechanisms to request
3

an extension of time if needed. See EDNY Local Civil Rule 7.1(d); Judge Shields’ Rules,
Section III. The rules further mandate that parties confer in good faith with each other prior to
seeking court intervention. See Local Civil Rule 37.3(a); Judge Shields’ Rules, Sections III, VI
(C). At this juncture, it is clear that Defense Counsel is working to provide the responses by
Wednesday, October 4, 2017. The Court will allow such extension, but will not permit any
further extension absent an indication that Counsel conferred in good faith. Counsel are
reminded that they must comply with this Court’s rules in requesting an extension of time.
3. Defendants’ Privilege Log
With respect to Plaintiff’s statement that he was not provided with a privilege log,
Defendants’ have responded that they did not provide Plaintiff with a privilege log because they
are not asserting privilege. As such, Defendants have waived any objections based on privilege
4. Redaction of Correction Officers and Medical personnel Identities
As to redactions, this Court’s August 18 Order specifically directed Defendants to
provide an appropriate basis for redactions of signatures of Correction Officers and Medical
Personnel Identities, and further directed parties to confer regarding whether redaction is
appropriate. See August 18 Order at 13.
Plaintiff states that Defendants’ have not provided any basis for redactions of the
identities of correction officers and medical personnel. Plaintiff additionally asserts that records
and entire pages have been redacted without any explanation. DE 69 at 2. Without making any
showing that he attempted to confer with Defendants regarding such redactions, he asks this
Court to find that Defendants have therefore waived their rights to any redactions. Id.
In response, Defendants argue that the redactions that were made were simply to redact
information that is not within the scope of discoverable information in this matter. Although that
4

might certainly be the case, it remains Defendants’ responsibility to explain the basis for
redactions to Plaintiff. This especially true in light of the Court’s directive requiring such action.
Therefore, Defendants are now directed to provide a specific basis for each and every redaction
by October 10, 2017. Defendants may simply refer to specific items as not within the scope of
discovery because, for example, the redacted information is unrelated to this case. Such redacts
are entirely appropriate, but it is for Defendants to explain them to Plaintiff so that there is
clarity.
5. Confidential Information
As Parties dispute whether certain items should be deemed confidential, they are directed
to follow the procedures set forth in their confidentiality order. Such order requires that the
“designating party bears the burden of showing the designated information is confidential
information within the scope of the order.” See DE 51, Exhibit 1 at 7. Parties are directed to
confer regarding any items in dispute no later than October 9, 2010. By October 13, 2017,
Defendants shall serve upon the Plaintiff and the Court any documents in dispute, along with an
explanation as to why each item submitted should be designated as confidential. The production
of such documents shall be filed in a manner consistent with the procedure set forth in the
Parties’ confidentiality order. Plaintiff may respond no later than October 20, 2017. Defendants
may reply no later than October 27, 2017.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion for a protective order is denied
without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for contempt, which the Court construes as a
motion to compel, herein Docket No. 69, is decided as follows:

5

(1) Parties are directed to confer with respect to the scope of the Sheriff Sposato’s
interrogatories. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, they shall file a joint letter setting forth
their positions within ten (10) days of this order. The letter shall also set forth three suggested
agreed upon dates for this Court to hold a telephone conference.
(2) At this juncture, it is clear that Defense Counsel is working to provide the responses by
Wednesday, October 4, 2017. The Court hereby extends the date for Defendants to provide such
responses until October 4, 2017, but will not permit any further extension absent an indication
that Counsel conferred in good faith. Any requests for extensions of time must comply with this
Court’s rules.
(3) Defendants have waived any objections based upon privilege.
(4) Defendants are now directed to provide a specific basis for each and every redaction by
October 10, 2017.
(5) If Parties are unable to agree to whether documents should be deemed confidential, they shall
confer regarding each document by October 9, 2010. If after conferring Parties are unable to
reach an agreement, Defendants have until October 13, 2010 to serve upon Plaintiff and the
Court the documents in dispute, along with an explanation as to why each item submitted should
be designated as confidential. The production of such documents shall be filed in a manner
consistent with the procedure set forth in the Parties’ confidentiality order. Plaintiff may respond
no later than October 20, 2017. Defendants may reply no later than October 27, 2017.

SO ORDERED
Dated: Central Islip, New York
October 4, 2017
/s/ Anne Y. Shields
6

ANNE Y. SHIELDS
United States Magistrate Judge

7