Gilmore v. Carey et al

Filing 78

ORDER: It is Ordered that the # 64 Motion for Discovery; and # 66 Motion to Compel are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) Defendants Carey and Yannone shall respond to Demands # 1(b) and to 1(e) only to theextent that the reports in question detail the arrest of the Plaintiff on January 11, 2012, and any force used or not used in connection with the arrest. The Court will not compel responses to Demands ## 1(a), (c), (d), (f), & (g). (2) Defendants Youngblood, Donn, and Auiga r shall respond to Demand # 2(c) only to the extent that the reports in question detail the arrest of the Plaintiff on January 11, 2012, and any force used or not used in connection with the arrest. The Court will not compel responses to Demands ## 2 (a), (b), & (d). (3) Defendants Jones, Gregory, Sager, and Frascello shall respond only to Demand # 3(c). (4) Defendants Hubicki and Juliano shall respond only to Demands ## 4(a), (b), (c), & (d). Pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 72(a), the parties have fo urteen (14) days1 within which to file written objections to the foregoing discovery order. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. As specifically noted in Rule 72(a) [a] party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 1/18/2017. (Copy served upon the pro se plaintiff via regular mail) (jmb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FURMAN GILMORE,
Plaintiff,
-v-

Civ. No. 1:15-CV-20
(TJM/DJS)

JOSEPH CAREY, et al.,
Defendants.
D

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

FURMAN GILMORE
Plaintiff, Pro Se
16-A-4869
Bare Hill Correctional Facility
Caller Box 20
Malone, New York 12953
J
S

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorney for State Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

HELENA LYNCH, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

SHANTZ, BELKIN LAW FIRM
Attorney for Defendant Jones, Sager, and Frascello
26 Century Hill Drive
Suite 202
Latham, New York 12110

DEREK L. HAYDEN, ESQ.

COOK, TUCKER LAW FIRM
Attorney for Defendants Hubicki and Julianio
85 Main Street
P.O. Box 3939
Kingston, New York 12401

MICHAEL T. COOK, ESQ.

DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel production of numerous
documents from the Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 64 & 66. A telephone conference was held, on the
record, on January 13, 2017, wherein all parties appeared and had full opportunity to present their
respective positions. At the close of argument I issued a decision on the record, in which, after
applying the requisite legal standards, I granted in part and denied in part the Motions pending
D

before the Court. I also provided further detail regarding my reasoning and addressed the specific
issues raised by the parties.
After due deliberation, and based up the Court’s oral decision, which is incorporated in its
entirety by reference herein, it is hereby,
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel (Dkt. Nos. 64 & 66) are GRANTED IN

J

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) Defendants Carey and Yannone shall respond to Demands # 1(b) and to 1(e) only to the
extent that the reports in question detail the arrest of the Plaintiff on January 11, 2012, and any force
used or not used in connection with the arrest. The Court will not compel responses to Demands
## 1(a), (c), (d), (f), & (g).
(2) Defendants Youngblood, Donn, and Auigar shall respond to Demand # 2(c) only to the

S

extent that the reports in question detail the arrest of the Plaintiff on January 11, 2012, and any force
used or not used in connection with the arrest. The Court will not compel responses to Demands
## 2(a), (b), & (d).
(3) Defendants Jones, Gregory, Sager, and Frascello shall respond only to Demand # 3(c).
(4) Defendants Hubicki and Juliano shall respond only to Demands ## 4(a), (b), (c), & (d).

-2-

Pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 72(a), the parties have fourteen (14) days1 within which to file
written objections to the foregoing discovery order. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk
of the Court. As specifically noted in Rule 72(a) “[a] party may not assign as error a defect in the
order not timely objected to.”
SO ORDERED.
Date: January 18, 2017
Albany, New York
D
J
S
1

If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the
fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the order was mailed to you to serve and file
objections. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday,
then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. FED. R. CIV.
P. 6(a)(1)(C).

-3-