United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
R. UNDERHILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
December 12, 2017, the plaintiff, Timothy Townsend, Jr., an
inmate currently confined at the Carl Robinson Correctional
Institution (“CRCI”) in Enfield, Connecticut,
filed an amended civil rights complaint pro se under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against nine Connecticut Department of
Correction (“DOC”) officials in their individual
capacities: Correction Officer Steve Wales, Lieutenant Marc
Congelos, Captain Daniel Dougherty, Correction Officer Joshua
Lorenzen, Correction Officer John Doe 1, Correction Officer
John Doe 2, Lieutenant Santiago Rangel, Correction Officer
Jason Nemeth, and District Administrator Angel Quiros. Am.
Compl., Doc. No. 10. I permitted his Eighth Amendment claims
for excessive force and deliberate indifference to safety to
proceed against Wales, Doe 1, and Doe 2 and his state law
assault and battery claim to proceed against Wales based on
allegations regarding an assault that occurred at the
Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution
(“Corrigan”) on January 21, 2015. Review of Am.
Compl., Doc. No. 13, at 18. I also permitted Townsend's
First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed against
Lorenzen, his state law due process claim to proceed against
Nemeth and Congelos, and his spoliation claim to proceed
against Dougherty. Id. The following motions are
pending in this case:
Motion to Compel Discovery, Doc. No. 37;
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. No. 42;
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. No. 56;
Motion to Add Affidavit to Defendants' Objection, Doc.
Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. No. 60; and
Motion to Substitute Affidavit, Doc. No. 61.
Motion to Compel Discovery, Doc. No. 37
March 28, 2019, Townsend filed a motion to compel the
defendants to produce twenty-three requested discovery items.
Mot. to Compel, Doc. No. 37. He claims that the defendants
have provided “a stack of documents that are not
separated by production request number [and] over
four-hundred pages of [un]related medical records, ”
thereby burdening him with the task of sifting through all of
the records to determine whether they comply with his
requests. Id. at 1. Townsend's requests included
the “Log Book” of correction staff working at
Corrigan on January 21, 2015, video footage, statements and
recordings related to the events in question, e-mail
exchanges between the defendants and other DOC personnel, the
names of the John Doe defendants, and cell phone and social
media account information for the defendants. Id. at
defendants submitted an initial objection to Townsend's
motion the same day, contending that their disclosures
“include[d] all the materials which [Townsend] will
need to try his case.” Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s
Mot. for Order of Compliance (“Defs.' First
Obj.”), Doc. No. 40; Defs.' Initial Disclosures,
Doc. No. 41. Included among those disclosures was a list of
all staff members who were working in the area where the
alleged assault took place, which the defendants argued would
assist Townsend in identifying the Doe defendants. Defs.'
First Obj. at 1; Defs.' Initial Disclosures at 1. In the
same written correspondence, the defendants requested
discovery from Townsend, including the names of witnesses he
wished to present, a damages analysis statement, an
explanation of any non-monetary relief sought, and copies of
any grievances or complaints in his possession related to the
events in question. Defs.' Initial Disclosures at 3.
10, 2019, I issued orders on several pending discovery
motions but took the instant motion under advisement because
counsel had only recently appeared on the defendants'
behalf. Ruling on Pending Motions, Doc. No. 47. I encouraged
both parties to discuss any remaining unresolved discovery
issues in an effort to narrow those in dispute. Id.
August 10, 2019, the defendants filed a second objection to
Townsend's motion to compel. Defs.' Second Obj. to
Pl.'s Mot. for Order of Compliance (“Defs.'
Second Obj.”), Doc. No. 58. The defendants contend that
they have compiled additional discovery materials for
Townsend, which were mailed on August 13, 2019. Id.
at 2. To the extent Townsend still needs additional
discovery, the defendants have indicated their willingness to
confer with him in an attempt to resolve any issues.
Id. Townsend has not replied to the second
light of the defendants' recent indication that they have
provided Townsend with additional discovery, Townsend's
motion is DENIED without prejudice and
discovery is extended for forty-five days. To the extent
Townsend still requires discovery from the defendants, he
must confer with defense counsel and attempt to achieve a
mutually satisfactory resolution, pursuant to District of
Connecticut Local Rule 37(a). In the event a resolution is
not reached, Townsed may refile his motion to compel and
attach an affidavit certifying that, despite a good faith
effort, he was unable to resolve the discovery issue with
defense counsel. See id. ...