United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULINGS ON PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS
R. Underhill, United States District Judge.
April 24, 2017, the plaintiff, Jose Anthony Torrez
(“Torrez”), an inmate currently confined at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield,
Connecticut, filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against several Department of Correction (“DOC”)
officers and medical staff for various constitutional
violations while he was housed at Northern Correctional
Institution (“Northern”). On June 6, 2017, I
issued my Initial Review Order permitting his claims for
excessive force, failure to protect, and conditions of
confinement to proceed against five defendants: Officer
Laprey, Lieutenant James Delpesio, Captain Parfumi, Barbara
Savoie, and Nurse Balatka. Torrez has since filed multiple
motions with the court pertaining to discovery. I enter the
following orders with respect to each motion:
Motions for Prejudgment Disclosure and Remedy (Doc.
Nos. 42, 43, 56)
September 12, 2017, Torrez filed a motion for prejudgment
disclosure of property and assets (Doc. No.
42) and an application for a prejudgment remedy
(Doc. No. 43). In support thereof, he argued
there is “probable cause that a judgment will be
rendered in” his favor and relies on Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 52-278. He seeks a prejudgment remedy in the amount of
$150, 000. The defendants counter that there is no reasonable
basis for the court to conclude that judgment will be entered
in Torrez's favor and that Torrez has failed to comply
with the requirements of section 52-278. Defs.' Obj.
(Doc. No. 51). After the defendants
submitted their response, Torrez filed another motion for
prejudgment disclosure of assets and application for
prejudgment remedy (Doc. No. 56), in which
he raised the same arguments as his two prior motions. For
the following reasons, I will deny all three motions without
Rule of Civil Procedure 64 permits a plaintiff to utilize the
state prejudgment remedies available to secure a judgment
that might ultimately be rendered in an action. See
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto
Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S.
423, 436 (1974); Cordoba Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Maro
Shipping, Ltd., 494 F.Supp. 183, 186 (D. Conn. 1980).
The Connecticut prejudgment remedy statute “provides
that a plaintiff suing for a money judgment may attach a
defendant's real or personal property during litigation,
if the plaintiff follows the statutory procedures designed to
protect the defendant.” Cordoba, 494 F.Supp.
52-278c sets forth the documents that a plaintiff must file
with the court to secure a prejudgment remedy, one of which
is an affidavit “sworn to by the plaintiff or any
competent affiant setting forth a statement of facts
sufficient to show that there is probable cause that a
judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought . . .
will be rendered in the matter in favor of the
plaintiff.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278c(a)(2).
has not complied with the requirements of section 52-278c. He
has not submitted the affidavit required by section
52-278c(a)(2). The court at this time has no reasonable basis
to conclude that a judgment will be entered in Torrez's
favor. Therefore, Torrez's motions for prejudgment
disclosure of assets and remedy (Doc. No. 42, 43,
56) are denied without prejudice.
Motions to Compel Discovery (Doc. Nos. 35, 46, 57,
has filed four motions to compel the production of several
documents and evidentiary items (Doc. Nos. 35, 46,
57, 59). He lists twenty-one items that he requested
from the defendants, including “all documents and
communications concerning [Torrez] . . . all incident reports
involving [Torrez] . . . all videos, photographs, or
telephone recordings of [Torrez] at Northern . . . [and] all
policies, procedures, directives, and/or guidelines
concerning UConn Correctional Managed Healthcare and
[Northern] Directives.” Mot. to Compel Disc.
(Doc. No. 59). The defendants argue that (1)
Torrez has failed to comply with the federal rules regarding
discovery, (2) they responded to Torrez's discovery
requests on September 27, 2017 and again on October 27, 2017,
and (3) Torrez's requests are overbroad, and he can
readily access his own files directly from DOC. Defs.'
Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. to Compel Disc. (Doc. No.
61). For the following reasons, Torrez's motions
to compel are denied without prejudice.
Rule 37(b) requires that memoranda be filed by both sides
before any discovery motion is heard by the Court.
“Each memorandum shall contain a concise statement of
the nature of the case and a specific verbatim listing of
each of the items of discovery sought or opposed, and
immediately following each specification shall set forth the
reason why the item should be allowed or disallowed.”
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(b)(1). The movant must attach to his
memorandum, as exhibits, copies of the discovery requests in
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party:
[M]ay obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to [his] claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the
parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
party claiming that a request is important to resolve the
issues should be able to explain the ways in which the
underlying information bears on the issues as that party
understands them. The court's responsibility, using all
the information provided by the parties, is to consider these
and all the other factors in reaching a case-specific
determination of the appropriate scope of discovery.”
Harnage v. Barrone, 15 Civ. 1035 (AWT), 2017 WL
3448543, *4 (D. Conn. Aug. 11, 2017) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26
advisory committee's note to 2015 amendment).
Nevertheless, “[t]he party resisting discovery bears
the burden of showing why discovery should be denied.”
Id. (internal quotations omitted).
case, I agree with the defendants that Torrez's discovery
requests are overbroad and include information that is not
relevant to the issues of the case. The remaining legal
claims to be decided are the excessive force claims against
Laprey and Delpesio, the failure to protect claim against
Delpesio, Savoie, Balatka, and Pafumi, and the conditions of
confinement claim against Savoie and Balatka. Initial Review
Order at 12 (Doc. No. 14). All three of
those claims stem from a single incident on July 3, 2016.
Id. at 2. Torrez's discovery requests extend
well beyond that incident, including documents related to his
transfer to Northern, his complete medical history, and all
communications, videos, reports, grievances, and audio
recordings related to his stay at Northern. Torrez has not
sufficiently explained how all of that material is relevant
to the incident on July 3, 2016 that gave rise to his
complaint, and compelling the defendants to answer all of his
requests would be unduly burdensome. See Harnage,
2017 WL 3448543, *10 (dismissing prisoner's discovery
request as overbroad in scope); Young v. McGill, 09
Civ. 1186 (CSH), 2013 WL 5962090, *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 6, 2013)
(inmate's request for “medical grievances”
without further definition or dates vague and overbroad);
Goode v. Faneuff, 04 Civ. 1524 (WWE) (HBF), 2006 WL
2401593, *2 (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2006) (denying prisoner's
motion to compel based on prisoner's failure to explain
relevancy of broad discovery requests). Therefore,
Torrez's motions to compel the defendants to answer his