United States District Court, D. Connecticut
OMNIBUS DISCOVERY RULING
HON.
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending
before the Court are six motions filed by self-represented
plaintiff Deshawn Tyson (“plaintiff”): (1)
“Motion to Compell defendants to answer Plaintiff first
set of Interrogatories” [Doc. #153] (sic); (2)
“Plaintiff Motion to Compel Defendant's to Produce
Production/discovery” [Doc. #156] (sic); (3)
“PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO
COMPELL” [Doc. #157] (sic); (4) “MOTION FOR
SANCTION(S)” [Doc. #159] (sic); (5) “SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL Defendants to produce address of Defendant
Jane Doe AND OBJECTIONS” [Doc. #160] (sic); and (6)
“Motion to Compel Interrogatories from John F.
Healy” [Doc. #161] (sic). On August 13, 2019, Judge
Janet C. Hall referred plaintiff's motions to the
undersigned. [Doc. #164]. On the same date, the undersigned
entered an Order requiring that on or before September 3,
2019, defendants file an omnibus response to plaintiff's
motions, along with a copy of any discovery requests at issue
in plaintiff's motions. [Doc. #165]. Defendants have
timely complied with that Order. [Doc. #171].
For the
reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS, in
limited part, and DENIES, in large part,
plaintiff's motion to compel interrogatory responses
[Doc. #153]; (2) DENIES, without
prejudice to re-filing, plaintiff's motion to
compel discovery [Doc. #156]; (3)
DENIES, as moot, plaintiff's motion for
default judgment [Doc. #157]; (4)
DENIES plaintiff's motion for sanctions
[Doc. #159]; (5) DENIES
plaintiff's second motion to compel the production of
defendant Jane Doe's address [Doc.
#160]; and (6) DENIES, as
moot, plaintiff's motion to compel interrogatory
responses from defendant Healy [Doc. #161].
I.
Background
The
Court presumes familiarity with the factual background of
this matter, which is set forth at length in Judge Hall's
Initial Review Order [Doc. #12], Initial Review Order re:
Amended Complaint [Doc. #21], Ruling on Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #73], Ruling on Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Amend and Amended Initial Review Order
[Doc. #99], and Ruling on Motion to Intervene and to Stay
Discovery [Doc. #133]. Nevertheless, the Court highlights two
important details, which are relevant to the Court's
rulings below.
First,
on July 18, 2019, in connection with the criminal charges
underlying this civil case, plaintiff entered an Alford plea
to a substitute information charging plaintiff with unlawful
restraint in the first degree. See Doc. #171 at 65-78; see
also Doc. #146 at 2-3.
Second,
Judge Hall has dismissed, without prejudice, plaintiff's
false arrest claim against defendant Lucille Roach
(hereinafter “Roach”). See Doc. #99 at 7. Judge
Hall has instructed: “If the criminal prosecution
terminates in Tyson's favor, Tyson may file a motion to
add this claim.” Id. (footnote omitted). To
date, plaintiff has not requested to add the false arrest
claim against defendant Roach to this case.
Accordingly,
at present, the following claims remain in this case: (1) a
Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim against defendants
Garofalo, Przybylski, Przya, and Healy in their individual
capacities, see Docs. #21, #29, #35, #73; (2) a state law
defamation claim against Jane Doe, see Docs. #12, #21, #35;
and (3) claims for intentional infliction of emotional
distress against Jane Doe and defendant Roach, see Docs. #21,
#35, #73, #99.
II.
Legal Standard
Rule
26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth
the scope and limitations of permissible discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “[T]he burden of
demonstrating relevance remains on the party seeking
discovery.” Bagley v. Yale Univ., 315 F.R.D.
131, 144 (D. Conn. 2016) (quotation marks and citation
omitted), as amended (June 15, 2016); Republic of Turkey
v. Christie's, Inc., 326 F.R.D. 394, 400 (S.D.N.Y.
2018) (same). Once the party seeking discovery has
demonstrated relevance, the burden then shifts to
“[t]he party resisting discovery ... [to] show[] why
discovery should be denied.” Cole v. Towers Perrin
Forster & Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79, 80 (D. Conn. 2009)
(alterations added).
III.
Discussion
Plaintiff
has filed six motions relating to discovery and/or requesting
the imposition of sanctions. The Court addresses each in
turn.
A.
“Motion to Compell defendants to answer Plaintiff first
set of Interrogatories” [Doc. #153] (sic)
Plaintiff
seeks to compel additional responses to his first set of
interrogatories directed to defendant Roach. See Doc. #153.
Plaintiff specifically takes issue with defendant Roach's
responses to interrogatories 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18,
19, 21, and 24. See generally Id. Defendant Roach
has filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion. See Doc.
#171 at 1-9. The Court addresses each interrogatory in turn.
Interrogatory
2 asks: “Could evidence from a crime scene identify ten
difference people that may participated in a alleged crime
you are investigating?” Doc. #153 at 1 (sic); see also
Doc. #171 at 19. Defendant Roach objected to interrogatory 2
on several grounds, and notwithstanding those objections,
provided a response. See Doc. #171 at 19-20. Plaintiff
challenges defendant Roach's objections that
interrogatory 2 is vague and overbroad. See Doc. #153 at 2.
Plaintiff does not, however, acknowledge defendant
Roach's response, nor does he present any grounds for the
Court to find that defendant Roach's response is
insufficient or non-responsive. The Court has reviewed
defendant Roach's response to this interrogatory and
finds it sufficient. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
plaintiff's motion to compel with respect to
interrogatory 2.
Interrogatory
5 asks: “Do you have any evidence that Jane Doe was
even at the Marriott Hotel between the days and/or night of
5/6/2014, 5/5/2014 and 5/4/2014.” Doc. #153 at 2 (sic);
see also Doc. #171 at 20. Defendant Roach objected to
interrogatory 5 on several grounds, and notwithstanding those
objections, provided a response. See Doc. #171 at 20.
Plaintiff challenges defendant Roach's objection that
interrogatory 5 seeks information subject to the law
enforcement privilege. See Doc. #153 at 2-3. Plaintiff does
not acknowledge defendant Roach's response, nor does he
present any grounds for the Court to find that said response
is insufficient or non-responsive. The Court has reviewed
defendant Roach's response to this interrogatory and
finds it sufficient. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
plaintiff's motion to compel with respect to
interrogatory 5.
Interrogatory
7 asks: “Is everything in your warran/sworn Affidavit
for my Arrest True?” Doc. #153 at 3 (sic); see also
Doc. #171 at 20. Defendant Roach objected: “The
affidavit is a sworn affidavit signed by the Affiant, Lucille
Roach, a police detective at the time. With this in mind, no
response is necessary or appropriate.” Doc. #171 at 20.
Plaintiff asserts that defendant Roach's response is
vague and that interrogatory 7 warrants a “yes”
or “no” answer. Doc. #153 at 4. Defendant Roach
responds that interrogatory 7 “is harassing, though it
is answered in the objection.” Doc. #171 at 3.
Interrogatory 7 calls for a yes or no answer, which was not
provided. Defendant Roach shall provide plaintiff with such a
response. See Connors v. Pinkerton's, Inc., No.
3:98CV699(GLG), 1999 WL 66107, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 4,
1999) (“While defendant asserts that it responded to
these requests, plaintiff takes issue with the substance of
defendant's answers. ... [the interrogatory] calls for a
yes or no answer. Defendant is directed to answer, yes or
no[.]”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's
motion to compel with respect to interrogatory 7.
Interrogatory
8 asks: “Within your warrant/sworn Affidavit for my
arrest it stated that I Deshawn Tyson the plaintiff have two
convictions of sexual assault is that true?” Doc. #153
at 4 (sic); see also Doc. #171 at 20. Defendant Roach
objected: “The affidavit is a sworn affidavit signed by
the Affiant, Lucille Roach, a police detective at the time.
With this in mind, no response is necessary or
appropriate.” Doc. #171 at 20. Plaintiff asserts that
interrogatory 8 warrants a “yes” or
“no” answer. Doc. #153 at 4. Defendant Roach
responds that interrogatory 8 “is harassing, though it
is answered in the objection.” Doc. #171 at 3.
Interrogatory 8 calls for a yes or no answer, which was not
provided. Defendant Roach shall provide plaintiff with such a
response. See Connors, 1999 WL 66107, at *1. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to compel with respect to
interrogatory 8.
Interrogatory
9 asks: “In your warrant/sworn Affidavit for my Arrest.
All the DNA evidence within your warrant for my arrest is
listed as Mixtures and that my DNA profile contributes to
that DNA mixture. Does that mean more than two people DNA
profile could exist within all the DNA listed in your
warrant/sworn Affidavit?” Doc. #153 at 5 (sic); see
also Doc. #171 at 20. Defendant Roach responded and objected
to interrogatory 9 as follows:
This Interrogatory requests information that would require
the testimony of an expert. Further, the language referred to
in this Interrogatory appeared in the Supplemental DNA report
provided by the State of Connecticut Emergency Services and
Public Protection Division of Scientific Services, which has
been provided to the plaintiff; the paragraph (and the
document from which it was gathered) speaks for itself.
Doc. #171 at 21. Plaintiff asserts that he seeks a response
of “yes, ” “no, ” or “not
sure” to interrogatory 9. Doc. #153 at 5. Defendant
Roach, relying on the above-quoted response, states:
“Plaintiff seeks an interpretation that requires an
expert. ... It should not be incumbent upon the defendant(s)
to provide a further interpretation.” Doc. #171 at 4.
The Court agrees that interrogatory 9 essentially seeks an
expert interpretation of the Supplemental DNA report -- an
opinion which defendant Roach is not qualified to give. See,
e.g., United States v. Haynes, 729 F.3d 178, 195 (2d
Cir. 2013) (“If the opinion of a witness rests in any
way upon scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge, ” then it would be considered an expert
opinion, “because lay opinion must be the product of
reasoning processes familiar to the average person in
everyday life.” (citation and quotation marks
omitted)). The Court will require no further response to
interrogatory 9. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
plaintiff's motion to compel with respect to
interrogatory 9.
Interrogatory
12 asks: “Did you comply with the Court informer to
have Jane Doe Identify a Second Suspect on photo Board Before
my arrest?” Doc. #153 at 5 (sic); see also Doc. #171 at
21. Defendant Roach responded and objected to interrogatory 9
as follows:
There is an ongoing criminal prosecution of the plaintiff
related to the events described in plaintiff's complaint;
defendant objects on the basis of the law enforcement
privilege and to the extent that the information sought would
prejudice the criminal prosecution. Plaintiff is entitled to
receive documents and information in the criminal action and
should not be permitted to collect additional information to
which he is not entitled therein by way of his civil action
if it may prejudice the criminal prosecution. Plaintiff has
been provided the information to which he is legally entitled
at the juncture from the State's Attorney, including
...