Smith v. Fischer et al

Filing 92

DECISION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 83 Motion to Compel. By no later than 10/31/2018, plaintiff must supplement his responses as directed herein. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 10/16/2018. Copy of this Decision & Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Jeremie Smith on 10/16/2018 to his address of record. (KAH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
JEREMIE SMITH,
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-CV-6127G
v.
BRIAN S. FISCHER, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
Pending before this Court is defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to respond to
Defendants’ First Set of Document Demands and Interrogatories. (Docket # 83-1). In his
opposition, plaintiff provided narrative responses to certain of the interrogatories and attached
HIPAA releases. (Docket # 89). Defendants’ reply acknowledges that they now have answers to
some of the interrogatories, but maintains that they have only partial answers to others and no
answers at all to still others. (Docket # 90).
This Court’s review of the interrogatories (Docket # 80) and the responses
contained in plaintiff’s opposition papers reveals that plaintiff’s responses are not complete. By
no later than October 31, 2018, plaintiff is directed to supplement his responses in accordance
with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the following directives:
Third, Fourth, Sixth Demands: Plaintiff shall respond to these
requests (interrogatories and accompanying requests for
documents) as no substantive responses are included in his
opposition.
Second Demand: Plaintiff shall identify and produce copies of all
grievances he filed relating to his claims in this action. As to those
grievances for which some records have been produced
(FPT-25373-11, FPT-25525-11, FPT-25948, FPT-25428-11,
WDE-34954-11), plaintiff is directed to provide any other records

he has relating to those grievances. In addition, although his
opposition references grievance FPT-25978-12 as “directly related
to the denial of my meals, Jevity nutritional supplement and
psychiatric medications” and states that he has attached it as
Exhibit O (Docket # 89 at 20-23), Exhibit O to his opposition
actually attaches grievance WDE-24954-11. Thus, plaintiff should
produce copies of grievance FPT-25978-12 and records relating to
it.
Fifth Demand: Plaintiff shall provide the names of any DOCCS
staff members (other than Casper, Cheasman and Weinstock) who
he claims denied him food or food supplements, the dates or
approximate dates on which the staff member denied him food or
supplements, the type of food or supplement denied, and the reason
given, if any, for the denial.
Although defendants’ reply seeks to include in the order a directive that plaintiff
clarify his response to the second interrogatory in Defendants’ Second Set of Document
Demands and Interrogatories (Docket # 88), that discovery request was served after defendants’
filed their pending motion to compel. Accordingly, it is not within the scope of the instant
motion. To avoid further motion practice, plaintiff is encouraged to review his response to the
interrogatory and clarify in writing whether he recalls any dates other than July 8, 2011 on which
he was subject to razor deprivation.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to compel (Docket # 83) is
GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. By no later than October 31, 2018, plaintiff
must supplement his responses as directed herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
October 16, 2018
2