Moore v. Peters et al, No. 6:2013cv06271 - Document 49 (W.D.N.Y. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Compel. The Court extends discovery until November 18, 2016; dispositive motions must be filed no later than December 30, 2016. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 09/14/2016. A copy of this Order has been sent to pro se plaintiff. (JKT)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Moore v. Peters et al Doc. 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KENNETH MOORE, DECISION & ORDER 13-CV-6271 Piaintiff, v. CO J. PETERS et al., D€fendants. Preliminary Statement Pro se "plaintiff") 42 u.s.c. violations plaintiff Drug § alleging 1983' during his period and Five (Docket # 1) Treatment 7. Moore correction "defendant") (hereinafter of "Moore" pursuant to 2013, and due incarceration at Correctional or process Willard . Drug Facility. See Moore alleges that while at the Willard Campus, asserts officer retaliation Points he witnessed assault another participant, at Moore commenced this action on May 28, Treatment ·Campus Complaint Kenneth created a false corrections in retaliation (hereinafter misbehavior for "C. 0. report causing plaintiff to be moved to isolation, Points Correctional Facility, officers and he reported the assault. that Peters two Id. reporting,. Peters 11 or against Moore, transferred to Five and ultimately to have his parole revoked and ten-months added to his term of imprisonment. Id. at 7-13. Dockets.Justia.com After the filing of this federal action, submitted motions for summary judgment. Judge Wolford issued an Order on both parties See (Docket## 27, 32). March 13, 2015, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's third, action, Order thereby terminating two defendants from the case. (Docket remaining # 38) . parties Scheduling Order, Plaintiff 2015, fifth and sixth causes of filed Following met with Judge the undersigned, and began discovery. the Wolford's See established the a (Docket ## 39, 41) . instant motion to compel on September 29, seeking documents and information not provided by counsel for defendants in the initial disclosures. (Docket # 44) . 23, Order, See 2015, Counsel for the de.fendants responded on October objecting to many of providing additional materials. Plaintiff motion was See.Motion to Compel replied by the document demands and See Declaration (Docket # 46) . letter dated October deemed submitted to the 30, Court at 2015, that and this time. See Letter from Mr. Kenneth Moore (Docket # 47). Discussion Plaintiff objects to several of the defendants' to his discovery demands. His follows. 2 objections are responses addressed as Discovery Demand 1: failed to turn addresses of mandatory individuals information, Five over · Plaintiff states that defendants have that discovery, are likely to have names and discoverable information from Willard regarding his transfer to Points, log book entries, and parole officers and counselors. Defendants including respond by information out that plaintiff with 112 pages of discovery, they Richard Benitez have at 1. provided including the requested transcript from plaintiff's tier two hearing. of Defense Counsel J. specific (Docket # 4 7) See Letter pointing from See Declaration (Docket # 46) at l; see also Rule 26 Disclosures (Docket # 41) . At this stage of the discovery process, I find that defendants have reasonably complied with their duties under Rule 26. is Given the sworn representations of defense counsel, no reason incomplete, to and believe indeed that defendants' defendants there submissions supplemented their were initial discovery by including plaintiff's tier two hearing transcript. See Exhibit Benitez "A" (Docket to # Declaration of 46) at 1-55. Defense For that Counsel reason, J. R.ichard plaintiff's motion for mandatory discovery is denied. Discovery Demand 4-5: Plaintiff asked for the name and contact information of a specific participant in the Willard DTC Program. Jose See Letter Vasquez, and (Docket # 47) provided Mr. 3 at 2. Defendants identified Vasqeuz's DIN number. See Declaration of Defense Counsel J. Richard Benitez at 3. (Docket # 46) Defendants have thereby complied with plaintiff's request in # 4. Plaintiff additionally requests any information related to an alleged assault that occurred between defendant Peters and Inmate Vasquez on February 23, at The assault, 2. defendant Peters' that "safety confidential according to plaintiff, retaliation. and See Letter 2011. security inmate the basis for Defendants have responded Id. reasons prohibit See records." is (Docket # 47) the Declaration release of of Defense Counsel J. Richard Benitez (Docket# 46) at 3. Though plaintiff has stated that the alleged assault on February 23, 2011 is important "because it goes to motivation on Defendant Peters information plaintiff. party was is [sic] part," the Court does not agree that such relevant assault, (30) days C.O. Peters' retaliation against The issue in this litigation is not whether a third assaulted, against plaintiff. plaintiff to but whether defendant Peters retaliated Insofar as there are any reports written by regarding or related to Mr. Vasquez and the alleged these must be disclosed to the plaintiff within thirty if they have not already been provided. unrelated confidential records from 4 Inmate Vasquez's Otherwise, file are not sufficiently relevant to this lawsuit to require production, and therefore plaintiff's motion is denied. 1 Discovery seeks the working Demand name at of 9-10: two Willard In unknown while these two demands, plaintiff officers who corrections plaintiff was in treatment were there. Defendants have responded that they are unable to identify the individuals. See Declaration Benitez (Docket # 46) at 5-6. spirit of request," cooperation, but Il)ENTIFY." he then Defense Counsel Richard J. According to Mr. Benitez, facility the cryptically The Id. of is answered descriptive "in the researching with information this "UNABLE TO provided· by plaintiff about the two officers that is unusually specific, and the Court actually has has concerns made grants plaintiff's to about identify what these efforts the "facility" individuals. discovery demand insofar as The Mr. Court Benitez is required to provide a Declaration setting forth precisely what search efforts were made to identify the two corrections officers given the specificity plaintiff offered in describing them. Such declaration shall be filed within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. 'Public Officers Law§ .96 prevents disclosing personal records or information. See MicKinney's Public Officers Law § 96(1). This state law of confidentiality is not binding in federal civil rights actions, where plaintiff is able to make a threshold showing of relevance and particularity. See King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180 (E.D.N.Y. 1988). 5 Discovery Demand 14-15: ·According to plaintiff, defendant Peters created a fake misbehavior report stating that plaintiff became "defiant, disruptive, and agitated" at the beginning of a See Attachment # 3 to Plaintiff's Motion to community meeting: Compel (Docket # 44). This misbehavior was used as grounds to place plaintiff in isolation, Points, and revoke his transfer him from Willard to Five parole. Plaintiff states confrontation ever occurred with defendant Peters, the names of the forty-nine defendant Peters' report, at of the beginning individuals that and desires who, according it is the "intended to would have witnessed the altercation community meeting had it happened. Defendants. have objected to producing this information, that no to harass, is vague and Declaration of Defense Counsel J. Richard Benitez stating overbroad." (Docket # 46) at 7-8. Defendants' objections to making any further response to this discovery demand are sustained, and this request is denied. Based on the tier two hearing transcript, plaintiff already knows the names of numerous "witnesses" to the alleged incident of March 12, 2011. Indeed, plaintiff asked for at least five of the be "witnesses" to produced at his tier two disciplinary hearing held on March 16, 2011 and all five of them stated that they did not know enough about the incident to provide testimony at the tier two hearing. The Court finds that plaintiff has not 6 demonstrated that any of the forty-nine individuals who were in the community meeting room on March 12, 2011 have evidence relevant to his claim. Conclusion Plaintiff's motion to part and granted in part, Order. compel (docket # 44) is denied in consistent with the above Decision and The Court will extend discovery until November 18, 2016. Dispositive motions must be filed no later than December 2016. SO ORDERED. CELDMAN lYTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: September 14, 2016 Rochester, New York 7 30,
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
