United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MARVIN E. OWENS, Plaintiff,
NOVIA et al., Defendants.
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 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 is the
plaintiff's motion to compel. (Doc. #102.)
court held a lengthy oral argument on the plaintiffs'
prior motions to compel and issued a comprehensive ruling.
(Doc. #96.) The plaintiff subsequently filed the instant
motion, contending that the defendants' responses to some
of the discovery requests that the court had granted are
inadequate. In their opposition to the plaintiff's
motion, the defendants argue that they fully complied with
all the discovery requests in the court's ruling. (Doc.
#107.) In an effort to clarify the record, the court ordered
the defendants to "file a copy of the responses they
served and a memorandum addressing each of the requests that
the plaintiff challenges." (Doc. #123.) The defendants
did so. See doc. ##130, 132. The matter now being ripe for
adjudication, the court rules as follows:
Production Request 2: The plaintiff seeks police incident
reports for instances prior to May 21, 2015 when the
Bridgeport police responded to the plaintiff's High Ridge
motion to compel, the plaintiff argues that the defendants
have not produced police reports for the October 20, 2014 and
November 10, 2014 incidents.
defendants respond that no police reports exist for those
dates. They point to their supplemental compliance in July
2018 in which they so indicate and submit the affidavit of
Detective Barbara Gonzalez who conducted the search for
responsive documents. See doc. #130-2, Gonzalez Aff.
plaintiff's motion to compel is denied. See American
Banana Co., Inc. v. Republic National Bank of New York, N.A.,
No.99 CIV 1330(AGS), 2000 WL 521341, *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (the
"court cannot compel production of what does not
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."
present motion, the plaintiff says that the defendants are
trying to "mislead" him by providing information
for November 10, 2015, when he asked about November 10, 2014.
did in their Supplemental Compliance dated July 25, 2018,
defendants explain that there are no records of a November
10, 2014 call and as a result they
assumed the plaintiff was referring to a matter on November
10, 2015. Because it was assumed that  the date requested
was November 10, 2015, information was disclosed to the
plaintiff. To be clear, no matter exists for November 10,
2014. It has been determined that no call c[a]me into the
Bridgeport Police Department on November 10, 2014 for 336
High Ridge Drive, therefore, no police incident reports
See doc. 130-2.
plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
Question 5: The plaintiff seeks information that the police
dispatcher gave defendant Novia about the May 21, 2015 call
to the High Ridge address.
motion, the plaintiff states that he requests
"electronically stored audio communication between
Dispatch and defendant Novia regarding May 21, 2015
defendants explain that the 911 and dispatch recordings with
respect to May 21, 2015 incident at 336 High Ridge Drive were
saved to a USB flashdrive and produced to the plaintiff on
two occasions: ...