Opinion
01-CV-6934 (GEL) (HBP)
December 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, pro se, moves to compel responses to certain interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissions served on defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
II. Facts
A. Background
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Among other things, plaintiff claims that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of New York City Correction Officers who illegally handcuffed plaintiff and denied him access to restroom facilities. Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied a hearing regarding the propriety of being transported to court by the Emergency Services Unit ("ESU"), in violation of his due process rights.
B. The Discovery Requests in Issue
This current dispute arises out of defendants' responses to certain interrogatories and document requests served by plaintiff in April of 2002 and certain requests for admissions served by plaintiff on June 28, 2002. Plaintiff challenges defendants' response to the following items:
Plaintiff's "Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories" does not state the exact date in April upon which it was signed.
Interrogatories and Document Requests
Questions 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Requests for Admissions
Statements 2, 3, 4, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25
Defendants object to all of plaintiff's interrogatories and document requests and state that for certain of these requests, they have either produced documents and information in response or have no documents that are responsive. Defendants also object to all of plaintiff's requests for admissions and claim that certain of these requests are too vague and ambiguous to permit a response.
III. Analysis
A. Interrogatories and Document Requests Interrogatory 4 "State the names, titles and duties of all staff members of the New York City Department of Corrections, other than defendants who have responsibility of making rules and regulations pertaining to state prisoners being transported to Court by [New York City Department of Corrections, Emergency Services Unit] employees. If those rules and regulations, are set forth in any job description or other document, produce the document."
Defendants object on the grounds that this interrogatory is "vague, ambiguous, overbroad, to the extent it assumes facts not established, and to the extent it seeks documents not in defendants' possession, custody or control" (Defendants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories, at 4, submitted as Exhibit B to Defendants' Response to plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery ("Defendants' Response"), dated November 13, 2002). Defendants note that this information, if in existence, "would be in the possession, custody, and control of New York State" (Defendants' Response at 3).
Since the dispute arises out of a discovery request, defendants objection that the request "assumes facts not established" is frivolous since the purpose of discovery is to learn facts.
Contrary to defendants' contention, plaintiff does not seek information about "New York State," but rather, asks for the names, titles and duties of all staff members of the New York City Department of Corrections who are responsible for creating the rules and regulations regarding the transportation of state inmates. Therefore, defendants are instructed to answer plaintiff's interrogatory, either by identifying persons that are responsive to plaintiff's inquiry, or by indicating that no such persons exist.
Interrogatory 6 "State the names, titles and duties of all staff of [New York City Department of Corrections, Emergency Services Unit] transportation employees responsible for the care of prisoners. The names of the individual(s) responsible for ensuring that inmates request to utilize rest-rooms while in transportation from Downstate Correctional Facility are responded to. If those duties are set forth in any job description, or other document, produce the document."
Defendants object to interrogatory 6 on the grounds that it is "vague, ambiguous, overbroad, to the extent it assumes facts not established, and to the extent it seeks documents not in defendants' possession, custody or control" (Defendants' Response, Ex. B at 5). Defendants further argue that "this request assumes that there is a particular New York City employee who is responsible for ensuring that an inmate's request to utilize a bathroom is responded to" (Defendants' Response at 3)
Plaintiff alleges that on two separate occasions, his requests to utilize restroom facilities were ignored by New York City Correction Officers. To the extent that this interrogatory requests the names of those in charge of responding to such requests, defendants are directed to answer. Defendants' objection to the first part of the question — requesting information on employees responsible for "the care of prisoners" — is sustained.
Interrogatory 7 "State the procedure in effect during October 1999 until and including March 2000, for screening inmates in [New York State Department of Corrections] to be transported by [New York City Department of Corrections] to Court, by its [Emergency Services Unit] division. If the procedure and policies for screening are different for [New York City Department of Corrections] and [New York State Department of Corrections] inmates please state both procedures. If the procedures are set forth in any policy, directive, or other document, produce the document."
Defendants object to interrogatory 7 on the grounds that it is "vague, ambiguous, overbroad, to the extent it assumes facts not established, and to the extent it seeks documents not in defendants' possession, custody or control" (Defendants' Response, Ex. B at 6). Defendants argue that this information would be in the possession of New York State (Defendants' Response at 3).
The information sought is clearly relevant. To the extent the information is in defendants' possession, custody, or control, defendants are directed to respond to interrogatory 7.
Interrogatory 10 "State the procedure in effect during October 1999 and up until and including March 2000, for cuffing of state inmates being transported by [New York City Department of Corrections, Emergency Services Unit] division from Downstate Correctional Facility going to N.Y.C. for Court. If those procedures are set forth in any policy, directive, or other document, produce the document."
Defendants claim to have previously provided plaintiff with New York City Department of Corrections documents pertaining to the handcuffing techniques employed by the New York City Department of Corrections Emergency Service Unit (Defendants' Response at 3). Therefore, plaintiff's request is denied, without prejudice, to a subsequent motion to compel discovery explaining why defendants' answer to interrogatory 10 is unresponsive or insufficient.
Interrogatory 11 "State the procedure utilized to cuff and transport plaintiff on each occasion from October 1999 up until and including March 2000, by [New York City Department of Corrections, Emergency Services Unit] division while transporting plaintiff to N.Y.C. court. If those procedures are set forth in any policy, directive or other document, produce the document."
Among other boilerplate objections, defendants object to interrogatory 11 on the basis that "it would be unduly burdensome to investigate the handcuffing techniques employed each and every time plaintiff was transported to court between October 1999 and March 2000. Moreover, such information is not relevant to the instant lawsuit nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" (Defendants' Response at 3-4).
Plaintiff alleges at numerous points in his complaint that he was illegally handcuffed by New York City Correction Officers (Complaint ¶¶ 21, 25, 28-32). Plaintiff is seeking evidence to prove his allegations that he was in fact handcuffed in an improper manner. Therefore, defendants are directed to answer interrogatory 11 and to produce any related materials. Defendants' burdensomeness objection is entitled to no weight since defendants have not set forth the number of times plaintiff was transported between October 1999 and March 2000.
Interrogatory 12 "State, if any special cuffing procedures were ordered for plaintiff from October of 1999 up until March 2000. If such document exist, produce the document."
For the reasons stated in connection with interrogatory 11, defendants' objections to interrogatory 12 are overruled. Evidence, if in existence, regarding how plaintiff was handcuffed and if any "special cuffing procedures" were ordered for plaintiff is highly relevant to his claim. Therefore, defendants are directed to respond to interrogatory 12.
Interrogatory 13 "Provide any grievances, complaints, and administrative reprimands on all the defendants (each and everyone of them) mentioned in the complaint. Which, alleges acts of illegal, unethical or unprofessional misconduct on their part. If those grievances, complaints or allegations are in any federal or state court action, state the caption, title of the matter. If any judgment has been entered against the defendants, produce the results of such."
Defendants object to interrogatory 13 on the grounds that "it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, to the extent it assumes facts not established, and on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence" (Defendants' Response, Ex. B at 9). Defendants further argue that "in light of the individual officers' right to privacy, it is defendants' position that plaintiff is not entitled to this information" (Defendants' Response at 4).
To the extent defendants assert a privacy objection, their objection is overruled. See generally King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 1988).
To the extent defendants assert overbreadth, their objection is sustained. Although facts relevant to credibility are discoverable, see Davidson Pipe Co. v. Laventhol and Horwath, 120 F.R.D. 455, 461-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); see also Moss v. Stinnes Corp, 92 Civ. 3788 (JFK), 1997 WL 570675 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 1997) ("Parties may utilize discovery to obtain information for impeachment purposes."); 8 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice Procedure § 2015 at 208 (2d ed. 1994) ("Information showing that a person having knowledge of discoverable facts may not be worthy of belief is always relevant to the subject matter of the action.") (footnote omitted), interrogatory 13 is overbroad because it does not distinguish between disciplinary proceedings that are relevant to credibility (such as charges of dishonesty in the workplace) and disciplinary proceedings that have nothing to do with credibility (such as charges of parking one's car in a space assigned to another).
Accordingly, defendants' objections to interrogatory 13 are sustained.
Interrogatory 14 "State what policy, directives or procedures authorize [Emergency Services Unit] transportation division of [New York City Department of Corrections] to place the black box which secures handcuffs vertical instead of horizontal. If said policy, procedure, or directive is in writing, produce such document."
Defendants state that they have provided plaintiff with this information in their supplemental discovery response, dated August 14, 2002. Defendants specifically refer to the documents numbered 244 through 281 (see Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories, dated August 14, 2002, at 2, submitted to this Court as Exhibit C to Defendants' Response). Plaintiff has not explained why defendants should produce this information again or how defendants' production is deficient. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied with respect to Interrogatory 14, without prejudice, to a renewed motion by plaintiff that explains how defendants' response to interrogatory 14 is deficient.
Interrogatory 15 "State the names of all inmates who were transported in the vehicle with plaintiff on each and every occasion plaintiff was transported by [New York City Department of Corrections, Emergency Services Unit] during the months of October 1999 to March 30, 2000. If said names of inmates are in writing produce such document."
Defendants argue that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome in light of the difficulty defendants would have in "narrow[ing] down which of the over one hundred thousand Department of Correction's prisoner's [sic] were transferred to Court by the Emergency Service Unit on the same date as plaintiff" (Defendants' Response at 4). While defendants are correct that plaintiff's request requiring them to compile a list of inmates transported with plaintiff on "each and every" occasion plaintiff was brought to court is overbroad, plaintiff has a legitimate interest in discovering "the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Plaintiff alleges that on three specific occasions — October 1, 1999, October 6, 1999, and November 17, 1999 — in the course of his transportation to court, Correction Officers engaged in behavior that violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is entitled to discover the witnesses that were present on those occasions. Therefore, defendants are instructed to answer plaintiff's interrogatory with respect to the foregoing dates only. However, should defendants determine that there are no documents that are responsive to this request, they are instructed to serve an affidavit on plaintiff outlining their efforts to locate the requested information.
Interrogatory 16 "State the time and pick-up of plaintiff from Downstate Correctional Facility, or any other facility which he was housed. Also the time of delivery to plaintiff destination during the months from October 1, 1999 up until March 30, 2000. If said times are provided on documentation, produce the documents."
For the reasons stated in connection with interrogatory 15, defendants' objections to interrogatory 16 are sustained except to the extent that interrogatory 16 seeks information concerning plaintiff's transport on October 1, 1999, October 6, 1999, and November 17, 1999. Defendants are directed to respond to interrogatory 16 with respect to these three dates.
Interrogatory 17 "State any stops, or pick-up of any other prisoner while transporting plaintiff. If said occurred, provide the time, place and person transported. As well as any time said person or persons were delivered to their intended destination. If said is recorded on a document, produce the document."
For the reasons stated in connection with interrogatory 15, defendants' objections to interrogatory 17 are sustained except to the extent that interrogatory 17 seeks information concerning plaintiff's transport on October 1, 1999, October 6, 1999, and November 17, 1999. Defendants are directed to respond to interrogatory 17 with respect to these three dates.
B. Requests for Admissions Requests 2, 3, and 4 Notwithstanding their objections, defendants have denied the matters that plaintiff requested them to admit in requests 2, 3, and 4.
Defendants have clearly responded to plaintiff's requests for admissions. Although plaintiff, understandably, disagrees with the responses, defendants' responses are full and complete and plaintiff has offered no evidence suggesting that they are false, misleading or made in bad faith. Therefore, plaintiff's request that the Court order defendants to make the foregoing admissions is denied.
Requests 14, 22, 23, 24 and 25 Defendants object to each of these requests as containing "`vague and ambiguous wording that does not allow defendants fairly to admit or deny'" (Defendants' Response, Ex. F at 7, 9-10, citing Dubin v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 372, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)).
While a party is permitted to assert an inability to either admit or deny a request for an admission, defendants' boilerplate response to the above requests is insufficient.
In many instances a party simply will not know whether the matter it is asked to admit is true. In that instance it may reply that it cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter, but if it makes this response it is required to set forth in detail the reasons why this is so. A general statement that it can neither admit nor deny, unaccompanied by reasons, will be held an insufficient response, and the court may either take the matter as admitted or order a further answer.
8A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice Procedure § 2261 at 556-57 (2d ed. 1994) (footnotes omitted).
Therefore, defendants are directed to serve supplemental responses to requests numbered 14 and 22 through 25.
C. Plaintiff's Subpoena
Lastly, plaintiff requests that the Court compel the New York City Department of Correction to respond to plaintiff's subpoena request, allegedly served on the Legal Department of the New York City Department of Correction on June 28, 2002. Curiously, defendants have failed to address plaintiff's request in their papers.
In light of plaintiff's pro se status, I conclude it is appropriate to treat plaintiff's subpoena as a document request. Defendants are directed to respond to the subpoena as if it were a document request under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel is granted to the extent that within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, defendants shall (1) supplement their responses to plaintiff's interrogatories in accordance with the directives stated herein; (2) amend their responses to plaintiff's requests for admissions numbered 14 and 22 through 25; and (3) respond to plaintiff's subpoena as a document request under Rule 34. In all other respects, plaintiff's motion is denied.