Opinion
99-CV-6366 CJS
March 7, 2002
DECISION AND ORDER
Now before the Court are the following motions: 1) a motion for summary judgment [#224] by defendants Schoellkopf, Selsky, and Herbert; 2) a motion for summary judgment [#247] by defendant Giancarlo; 3) a motion to extend time [#237] by plaintiff; 4) two motions by plaintiff [#251][#281] to amend the complaint; 5) two motions by plaintiff [#256][#261] to compel discovery; and 6) two motions by defendants [#267][#268] for protective orders.
By Decision and Order [#255] dated August 3, 2001, the undersigned ordered that the two summary judgment motions [#224][#247] be held in abeyance, pending a ruling by the Hon. William G. Bauer, United States Magistrate Judge, on the other motions listed above. On January 23, 2002, Magistrate Judge Bauer issued a combined Report Recommendation and Decision Order [#288] with regard to those motions. The Report Recommendation portion of [#288] dealt with plaintiff's two motions to amend the complaint [#251][#281]. Defendants did not oppose those motions, and Magistrate Judge Bauer has recommended that the Court grant them in part and deny them in part. The Decision and Order portion of [#288] deals with the non-dispositive discovery motions. With regard to plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from defendant Herbert [#256] and Herbert's corresponding motion for a protective order, Magistrate Judge Bauer found that Herbert had properly responded to plaintiff's discovery demands, and he therefore denied the motion to compel and granted the request for a protective order. With regard to plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from defendants Herbert, Selsky, Schoellkopf and Giancarlo [#261] and defendants' corresponding motion for a protective order [#268], Magistrate Judge Bauer granted both motions in part and denied both motions in part. He denied the motion to compel and granted the motion for a protective order as to Selsky, Schoellkopf, and Giancarlo, since, as a result of the amendment of the complaint, they are dismissed from the action. However, as to defendant Herbert, the Magistrate Judge directed that certain portions of Herbert's personnel file be submitted to the Court for in camera review. The Magistrate Judge also amended the pre-trial Scheduling Order [#40] by extending the dates for completion of factual discovery and for the filing of dispositive motions. A copy of the Report Recommendation/Decision and Order, with notice of entry, was mailed to the parties on January 24, 2002.
Although defendants did not oppose the relief sought, they did request that the Court grant the relief in a manner that did not require all defendants to file another set of answers to the amended complaint. More specifically, they suggested that the amendments be effectuated by simply dismissing certain claims and parties from the Amended Complaint [#176], which the defendants had already answered, rather than having plaintiff file a new amended complaint. Magistrate Judge Bauer has recommended that the Court affirm and adopt this recommendation, which it does herein.
On January 30, 2002, plaintiff filed an objection [#290] to certain rulings in the Decision and Order portion of [#288], but raised no objection to the Report Recommendation. Defendants did not respond to plaintiff's objections. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the subject motions, the Report Recommendation/Decision and Order, and plaintiff's objections.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's objections concern non-dispositive pretrial matters determined by a United States Magistrate Judge. In such a case, "[t]he district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (providing that a district court judge may reconsider such a determination "where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."). As to that,
[t]he Supreme Court has recognized that a finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Pursuant to this highly deferential standard of review, magistrates are afforded broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes and reversal is appropriate only if the discretion is abused.
Federal Ins. Co. v. Kingsbury Properties, Ltd., Nos. 90 Civ. 6211 (JMC), 90 Civ. 6357 (JMC), 1992 WL 380980 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 1992) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party." However, Rule 26(c) states that the Court "may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters." The Second Circuit has held that Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) "is not a blanket authorization for the court to prohibit disclosure of information whenever it deems it advisable to do so, but is rather a grant of power to impose conditions on discovery in order to prevent injury, harassment, or abuse of the court's processes." Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assocs. v. Technicare Corp., 710 F.2d 940, 945 (2d Cir. 1983).
With regard to motions [#256] and [#267], plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred by failing to compel defendant Herbert to provide a further response to a request for admissions, and to provide answers to certain interrogatories to which Herbert had objected. As for the request for an admission, plaintiff seeks to have Herbert admit that a videotape depicts another defendant's foot making contact with plaintiff's leg. As for the interrogatories, plaintiff sought to have Herbert answer questions regarding: 1) a photograph of a weapon seized from another inmate in an incident unrelated to the instant action; 2) two different state court actions unrelated to the instant action; 3) complaints plaintiff made about the conditions of his confinement at another correctional facility; and 4) whether or not a certain audio tape was "evidence." The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly denied the motion to compel and properly granted the motion for a protective order, for the reasons stated in the Decision and Order [#288]. More specifically, Herbert has already answered the request for an admission, and the interrogatories are either irrelevant or ask the defendant to make an evidentiary ruling. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ruling was erroneous, let alone clearly erroneous.
Plaintiff also objects to that portion of the Decision and Order [#288] which amends the pre-trial scheduling order, by extending the date for defendants to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff contends that the amendment is unfair, arguing, essentially, that the defendants could have previously filed dispositive motions, but have not done so. Plaintiff also contends that all defendants except Herbert have waived their right to make dispositive motions, since an earlier letter to the Court from defendants' counsel implied that he intended to make a dispositive motion only on behalf of Herbert. This objection is also denied. First, even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's objection as it pertains to the defendants other than Herbert, Herbert would nonetheless be entitled to bring a dispositive motion, since he was not added as a defendant until after the expiration of the original deadline for filing dispositive motions. That is, the original Scheduling Order [#40] set January 15, 2001 as the deadline for filing dispositive motions, and Herbert was not added as a defendant until February 14, 2001 [#176]. Moreover, even as to the remaining defendants, it is clear, as Magistrate Judge Bauer noted, that the original scheduling order had become outdated. For example, although the original scheduling order set December 1, 2000, as the deadline for discovery, plaintiff did not file his fifth request for production of documents until April 16, 2001 [#219], did not file his eighth request for production of documents until October 24, 2001 [#269], and did not file ninth and tenth requests for production of documents [#284][#285] until December 4 and December 11, 2001, respectively. In any event, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he will be prejudiced by extending the date for filing dispositive motions. Accordingly, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Bauer's Decision and Order amending the scheduling order is not clearly erroneous.
Plaintiff raised no objection to the report recommendation portion of [#288], and the Court affirms and adopts that report and recommendation in its entirety. In that regard, the Court notes that, as a result of the amendments to the complaint, the two summary judgment motions which had been held in abeyance [#224][#247], as well as plaintiff's motion for an extension of time [#237], are rendered moot, and are therefore denied. Moreover, since plaintiff made no objection to that portion of the Decision and Order [#288] dealing with motions [#261] and [#268], the Court also affirms and adopts that portion of the Decision and Order in all respects.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Report Recommendaton/Decision Order [#288] of Magistrate Judge Bauer is affirmed and adopted in its entirety. Motions [#251][#281] to amend the complaint, motions [#256][#261] to compel discovery, and motions [#267][#268] for protective orders, are disposed of as directed in the Report Recommendation/Decision and Order. In addition, motions [#224],[#237], and [#247] are now moot, and are therefore denied.
So Ordered.