Anderson v. Serena et al

Filing 87

ORDER denying 77 Motion to Amend or Correct; denying 82 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 06/01/2016. A copy of this order has been sent to pro se plaintiff along with a copy of Local Rule 15 "Amending Pleadings." (JKT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DERRICK ANDERSON
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
12-CV-6039

v.
R.N. SERENA BUIE, et. al.,
Defendant(s).
_____________________________

The Court is in receipt of two motions made by pro se plaintiff
Derrick Anderson (hereinafter “plaintiff”).

First is a motion for

leave to file an amended complaint (Docket # 77), and second is a
motion to compel discovery (Docket # 82).

Both motions are dismissed

without prejudice, for the reasons stated below.
Motion to Amend:
pursuant

to

Rule

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend

15(a)

and

19(a)

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure, seeking to add a party, Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci,
and new legal claims.

See Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket # 77).

Plaintiff did not include an unsigned copy of the proposed amended
pleading

as

an

Procedure 15(a).

exhibit,

which

is

required

under

Local

Rule

of

Plaintiff is directed to refile his proposed amended

complaint in compliance with the Local Rules.
Motion

to

Compel

Discovery:

Defendants

filed

mandatory

disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on April 27 and 29, 2016.
## 73, 76).
thereafter

See Rule 26 Disclosures (Docket

These disclosures total hundreds of pages.

filed

the

instant

motion

to

compel

on

May

Plaintiff
19,

2016,

asserting that defendants stated in their initial disclosures that

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) is “not applicable,” and seeking to “compel a
further response in view of the ‘un-clear’ meaning of the term ‘not
applicable,’” and the “production of various initial disclosures that
[plaintiff]

alleged

complaint.”

See Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Docket # 82).

Rule

are

relevant

26(a)(1)(A)(iii)

to

requires

the

claims

parties

asserted

to

his

over

turn

in

“a

computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing
party

.

.

statement

.

.”

that

explanation:

Fed.
this

R.

Civ.

Rule

is

P.
not

26(a)(1)(A)(iii).
applicable

no

further

defendants have not claimed any damages, and the Rule

does not therefore apply to their disclosures.
therefore dismissed.
ongoing

needs

Defendants’

responsibility

Plaintiff’s motion is

Counsel for the defendants is aware of their
under

the

Rules

to

disclose

documents

to

plaintiff. Should plaintiff find that there are documents that he has
not received that he believes he is entitled to, he may refile a
motion to compel detailing what he would like to be disclosed to him.
SO ORDERED.

______________________________
Jonathan W. Feldman
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated:

June 1, 2016
Rochester, New York

2