United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Jean Karlo Conquistador (âConquistadorâ), has
filed three motions relating to discovery matters and one
to Determine Sufficiency [ECF 39]
to Rule 36(a)(6), Conquistador has filed a motion asking the
Court to determine the sufficiency of the defendant’s
responses to his requests for admission. He contends that
responses to requests 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25,
26, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39, and 40 do not comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4).
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically
deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot
truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to
the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires
that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a
matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify
or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of
knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or
deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable
inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily
obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
contends that the defendant’s responses are vague and
fail to state that defendant Adamaitis made a reasonable
inquiry and that the information needed to respond is not
of these requests, Conquistador asks defendant Adamaitis, in
one form or another to admit that Conquistador told him of a
threatened assault and asked to be moved to a different
housing unit. Defendant Adamaitis consistently denies that
Conquistador reported a threat or asked to be moved to a
different housing unit. Doc. No. 39 at 7-8. As defendant
Adamaitis denies that the conversation occurred, his denials
12 & 13
Requests 12 and 13, Conquistador asks defendant Adamaitis to
admit that surveillance footage shows defendant Adamaitis
standing outside Conquistador’s cell between 4:00 p.m.
and 5:00 p.m. on July 2, 2018, the day of the incident
underlying the complaint, and that Correctional Officer
Jenkins is depicted standing next to defendant Adamaitis
during that time. Doc. No. 39 at 8. Defendant Adamaitis
states that he lacks sufficient knowledge to respond to the
request because surveillance footage was preserved only for
the period from 4:44 p.m. thought 5:15 p.m., the time of the
incident. The preserved footage does not depict these events.
As the relevant footage no longer exists, defendant
Adamaitis’ responses to requests 12 and 13 are
23 & 24
these requests, Conquistador asks defendant Adamaitis to
admit that Conquistador was placed on suicide watch on July
2, 2018 and released from Hartford Correctional
Center’s mental health unit on July 3, 2018. Defendant
Adamaitis states he lacks sufficient knowledge to respond to
the specific dates. He does admit that Conquistador was
placed on suicide watch and then released from the mental
health unit at some time following the July 2, 2018 incident.
Doc. No. 39 at 11.
assessing the sufficiency of a party’s responses, a
court considers whether the response meets the substance of
the request and whether any qualifications are demanded by,
and made in, good faith.” Boudreau v. Smith,
No. 3:17-cv-589(SRU), 2019 WL 3973997, at *2 (D. Conn. Aug.
22, 2019) (quoting Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
Co., Nos. 96 Civ. 8386(KMW)(HBP), 01 Civ.
1909(KMW)(HBP), 2009 WL 1457142, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 26,
2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defendant
Adamaitis has admitted that Conquistador was placed on
suicide watch and later released from the mental health unit.
Although Conquistador is correct that defendant Adamaitis
does not state that he made a reasonable inquiry regrading
this information or that he cannot readily obtain
information, to enable him ...