United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MARVIN E. OWENS, Plaintiff,
NOVIA et al., Defendants.
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge.
plaintiff, who is self-represented, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant
Bridgeport police officers Novia, Lazaro and Feroni
concerning a May 21, 2015 incident. The operative complaint
alleges false arrest and excessive force claims as to
defendant Novia and failure to intervene claims as to
defendants Lazaro and Feroni. Pending before the court are
the plaintiff's motions to compel. (Doc. ##79, 88, 89).
The written submissions are disorganized, difficult to
follow, and incomplete. In an effort to clarify the record,
the court held oral argument on June 19, 2018. After hearing
a lengthy and comprehensive discussion of all the
plaintiff's discovery issues, the court rules as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #79)
Production Request 1: During oral argument, the
plaintiff, on the record, revised this request to seek
"supplemental" police reports for the instances
before May 21, 2015 when defendant Novia responded to the
plaintiff's High Ridge Drive address. The defendants do
not object to this request. The request is
Production Request 2: The plaintiff seeks police
incident reports for instances before May 21, 2015 when the
Bridgeport police responded to the plaintiff's High Ridge
Drive. The defendants do not object. The request is granted.
Production Request 3: As narrowed during oral
argument, the plaintiff seeks reprimands, complaints and/or
grievances contained in the defendants' personnel files
regarding allegations of false arrest, excessive force and/or
failure to intervene. The request is granted in part. To the
extent that any responsive documents exist, the defendants
shall submit them to the court for in camera review.
After the in camera review, the court will determine
whether any documents must be produced.
Production Request 4: The plaintiff seeks a 2012
police incident report regarding defendant Lazaro's
presence at the plaintiff's Benham Avenue address in
response to a landlord tenant dispute. The request is
Production Requests 5 and 6: The plaintiff seeks an
"electronically stored" December 24, 2015 warrant
application and December 28, 2015 incident report. The
requests are denied on the grounds of relevance. Information
is considered relevant if "(a) it has any tendency to
make a fact more or less probable than it would be without
the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in
determining the action." Fed.R.Evid. 401. "[T]he
burden of demonstrating relevance is on the party seeking
discovery." Harnage v. Brennan, No.
3:16CV1659(AWT)(SALM), 2018 WL 2128379, at *2 (D. Conn. May
9, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
This case concerns the plaintiff's May 2015 encounter
with the defendants. The incidents addressed in production
requests 5 and 6 postdate the incident at issue. The
plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that the
requested information is relevant to his claim.
Production Request 7: The plaintiff requests the
defendants' insurance information. During oral argument,
the plaintiff acknowledged that the defendants provided the
information. The request is denied as moot.
Production Request 8: The plaintiff seeks the
"electronically stored" communication between
police dispatch and defendant Novia regarding the May 21,
2015 call. The request is granted.
Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Doc. ##88, 89)
Questions 2 and 3: The plaintiff asks whether defendant
Lazaro, while in uniform, went to the plaintiff's home on
Benham Avenue in 2012 to address the plaintiff concerning a
landlord tenant issue. If so, the plaintiff requests a copy
of the police report. If there is no police report, the
plaintiff asks for an explanation why no report was filed.
The defendants do not object to these requests and they are
"Followup" question: The plaintiff asks
whether defendant Lazaro proofread and signed defendant
Novia's May 21, 2015 incident report. The defendants do
not object to this question. The request is granted.
Question 4: The plaintiff asks whether defendant
Novia responded to a call on November 10, 2014 to go to the
plaintiff's High Ridge Drive home and if so, seeks the
"nature of [the] call" and the "outcome of
police response." ...