The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lindsay, Magistrate Judge
Before the court is the plaintiffs' letter application dated January 6, 2006, seeking to compel more complete responses to certain of their discovery requests. The plaintiffs also seek to extend the time by which the plaintiffs have been directed to serve their expert reports. The defendants oppose the motion by letter dated January 11, 2006.*fn1 For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The plaintiffs' application addresses the sufficiency of the defendants' responses to the following requests:
1. identities of Nassau County police officers who assisted defendant Snelders [when he] handcuffed Mr. Frazier . . .;
2. identities of witnesses to Nassau County police officers who witnesses defendant Snelders subdue Mr. Frazier, . . .;
3. identities of police officers who handcuffed or otherwise interacted with plaintiff Johnson, . . .;
4. identities of all persons detained during the warrant execution, . . . ;
5. copies of video and/or audio tapes taken as part of the warrant execution, . . . ;
6. identification of any Internal Affairs interviews done of defendant Lanzilotta;
7. all reports to the warrant issuing court and applications towards the warrant executed on July 9, 2003 at 85 Lawrence Avenue, . . .; and
8. additional documents such as color copies of photographs produced and procedures in effect as of the date of the warrant execution.
Each of these requests will be addressed in turn.
The requests enumerated as 1 through 4 above essentially seek the identification of witnesses to the events that took place on July 9, 2003. Counsel for the defendants has addressed each of these request with her clients and determined that no further information is available. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requests with respect to 1-4 is denied.
The request enumerated as 5 seeks copies of video and/or audio tapes taken as part of the warrant execution. The defendants acknowledge that an audio and video recording were made by a confidential informant, but have objected to the tapes production to protect the identity of the informant and, more importantly, because the film does not depict any ...