RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS

JOAN GLAZER MARGOLIS, Magistrate Judge.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff commenced this Section 1983 action (Dkt. #1), followed by an Amended Complaint, filed November 14, 2013 (Dkt. #7), followed by a Second Amended Complaint, filed April 15, 2014 (Dkt. #19). The Second Amended Complaint includes ten defendants, including two police officers in the Bridgeport Police Department ["BPD"], Joseph Lawlor and Elson Morales, four Sergeants in the BPD, Manuel Cotto, Joseph Adiletta, Tjuana Bradley-Webb, and Ronald Mercado, one Lieutenant in the BPD, Rebecca Garcia, the Chief of the BPD, Joseph Gaudett, Jr., the Mayor of the City of Bridgeport, William Finch, and the City of Bridgeport itself, regarding three allegedly "rogue cops" in the BPD, namely defendants Mercado, Morales and Lawlor. Five counts are included: municipal liability under Section 1983 against defendants Bridgeport, Finch, Gaudett, Garcia, Cotto, Adiletta and Bradley-Webb (Count One); municipal liability under Section 1983 against defendants Bridgeport, Garcia, Gaudett and Finch (Count Two); and excessive force under Section 1983, common law assault, and common law battery against defendants Mercado, Morales and Lawlor (Counts Three, Four and Five).

Under an electronic scheduling order filed by U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton on May 5, 2014, all discovery is to be completed by March 31, 2015, and all dispositive motions are to be filed by May 15, 2015. On July 7, 2014, plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Order Compelling Discovery and Motion for Sanctions with briefs in support (Dkts. ##20-21),1 as to which defendants filed their objection, affidavit, and briefs in opposition three weeks later. (Dkts. ##22-23). On August 1, 2014, plaintiff filed his reply brief. (Dkt, #25). That same day, Judge Arterton referred this file to this Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #24).

Only one category of documents remains in dispute.2 Interrogatories Nos. 2-12, and Requests for Production Nos. 4(i)-(n), 7, and 11-12, all concern plaintiff's Monell claims, as to which defendants objected on the basis of the time frame covered (2006 to 2013) which was outside the time period alleged in the complaint (namely 2011-12), and on the basis of the scope of information sought (all members of the BPD instead of just the three allegedly "rogue" police officers). (Dkt. #20, Brief at 7-12, 15-16 & Exhs. A-B, F-G). Plaintiff's counsel represent that "[a]s a compromise," they had offered to reduce the time periods to five years, and to provide a protective order with respect to confidential information. (Id. at 5). In their brief in opposition, defendants again assert these discovery requests are overbroad, in seeking information regarding all police officers over a seven to ten year period. (Dkt. #23, at 5-10). In his reply brief, plaintiff argues that all this discovery is necessary because "the misconduct of these three rogue officers was the result of a long-standing and widespread custom or policy of deliberate indifference on the part of [BPD] management[.]" (Dkt. #25, at 1-3). With respect to Interrogatories No. 2-12, and Requests for Production Nos. 4(i)-(n), 7, and 11-12, plaintiff is entitled to discovery for the period 2008 through 2013 (three years prior to the incidents at issue and through the filing of this lawsuit), for all complaints against the three allegedly "rogue" officers, namely defendants Mercado, Morales and Lawlor, and for all complaints against other police officers that allege excessive force.3

Plaintiff's counsel is also seeking attorney's fees in that the defendants sought extensions "for an improper purpose — namely to cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings in this case[.]" (Dkt. #20, Brief at 16-20; Dkt. #21). Given defense counsel's representations that there had been only limited discussions about the objections (Dkt. #22 & Brief at 2-4; Aff't, ¶¶ 5-9),4 plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is denied without prejudice.5

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. #20) is granted with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 2-12, and Requests for Production Nos. 4(i)-(n), 7, and 11-12, so on or before September 12, 2014, defendants shall respond for the period 2008 through 2013, for all complaints against the three allegedly "rogue" officers, namely defendants Mercado, Morales and Lawlor, and for all complaints against other police officers that allege excessive force. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. #21) is denied without prejudice.

This is not a Recommended Ruling, but a ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the standard of review of which is specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636; FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; and Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges. As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the District Judge upon timely made objection.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within fourteen calendar days after service of same); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; Small v. Secretary, H&HS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge's recommended ruling may preclude further appeal to Second Circuit).6