DANIEL J. STEWART, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Rule 37 Motion seeking to compel Defendants to provide certain documents in accordance with his Discovery Demands, dated January 5, 2017. Dkt. No. 31. Defendants have opposed Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Dkt. No. 35. A telephone conference was held, on the record, on April 21, 2017, wherein all parties appeared and had a full opportunity to present their respective positions. I issued a decision on the record, in which, after applying the requisite legal standards,
After due deliberation, and based up the Court's oral decision, which is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein, it is hereby,
Plaintiff has made a demand for the trial transcript of a State court proceeding entitled "In the Matter of the Commitment of Kim Vasquez." The Defendants indicate that they do not possess any such transcript, and therefore their response to the discovery demand is appropriate. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the transcript is therefore
Plaintiff requests a copy of his recorded interview with the New York State Department of Justice which allegedly occurred in August 2015. Again, Defendants' counsel indicates that the search for any such recorded interview has been made and such an interview, if it exists, is not in their possession. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a different response is therefore
Plaintiff originally requested a copy of video surveillance, dated September 29, 2015, during the hours of 1:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., which allegedly shows Plaintiff being choked until he fell unconscious. During the telephone conference, Plaintiff indicated that the date in question was actually August 29, 2015, and not September 29. The Court therefore sua sponte amends the demand to reflect the corrected date, and directs that within thirty days of the filing date of this Order that the Defendants respond to this amended demand. Plaintiff's Motion, in this respect, is
Plaintiff was provided documentation regarding CNYPC staff's use of force against him. Unfortunately, he is unable to read the names of the staff members involved. It was agreed that Defense counsel would attempt to get someone with knowledge to review the documents in question and provide a list to Plaintiff of the names in a readable format. Plaintiff's Motion, in this respect, is
In his Complaint, Plaintiff identified the nurse in question as Thea Joseph. See Dkt. No. 41 at ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with regard to this demand is
The superintendent has been dismissed from the lawsuit, and therefore this demand is
In a previous decision by the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, Senior United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, all claims with regard to Plaintiff's stay at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility were severed, and are not presently part of the Plaintiff's claims that are pending in the Northern District. Dkt. No. 11. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for video surveillance at the Sing Sing Facility is
The Plaintiff has requested his medical health records from August 1, 2015 until August 12, 2015, while at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Defendants have responded that they do not have such records, and further, the records would be irrelevant to the case at hand. Defendants are not required to produce what they do not possess and therefore the Motion is
And it is further
Pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 72(a), the parties have fourteen (14)