Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bruno v. City of Schenectady

United States District Court, N.D. New York

February 17, 2015

CITY OF SCHENECTADY, et al., Defendants.


RANDOLPH F. TREECE, Magistrate Judge.

On January 28, 2015, Defendants filed a Status Report revealing that there may be deficiencies with regard to Bruno's responses to Defendants' Interrogatory and identifying other discovery disagreements. Dkt. No. 79, Defs.' Status Rep. Ms. Bruno filed a Letter-Motion in response. Dkt. No. 80, Pl's Lt.-Mot., dated Jan. 30, 2015. On February 12, 2015, a Hearing was held on the record. During the Hearing the Court made several Rulings which are incorporated by reference into this Discovery Order and summarized below.

Rule 26 Mandatory Disclosures

Although Bruno may have responded to several of Defendants' discovery demands, those responses have not fully complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Bruno shall provide "the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information[.]" FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). This list of persons with discoverable information is much broader than just trial witnesses, but surely trial witnesses would be included. But, Bruno does not have to produce the names and their respective addresses if such information is not within her personal knowledge. She does not have to research that information. By serving the names and addresses upon Defendants, Bruno will not have to provide a narrative answer to Defendants' Interrogatory numbered 11.

Bruno shall make available for copying all of the documents within her possession or custody that may support her claims or be relevant to the defenses. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Bruno may have already calculated her damages but for some unknown reason that information had not been fully shared with Defendants. The Court understands that Bruno may have medical bills that would support her calculations of damages. Accordingly, Bruno shall disclose her calculation of damages and, to the extent that she can, disclose supporting documentation. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). In this regard, it appears that Bruno had prepared a document entitled "Exhibit A" which may be a calculation of her medical expenses. To the extent that it still exists, Bruno shall serve it upon the Defendants.

Providing all of the documents in her possession will also satisfy Defendants' Interrogatory numbered 12. Bruno has both the right and obligation to supplement her responses as more information may come into her possession.


Defendants shall serve new medical and no fault authorizations upon Bruno. Bruno shall execute those authorizations and promptly return them to Defendants' Counsel. There shall be no restrictions or limitations within the authorizations.

Defendants assured Bruno on the record that her medical records will be used for the sole purpose of this litigation and, to the extent that they can, maintain them from the general public's purview until these issues are presented either in a dispositive motion or to a jury.

Because these authorizations will reveal the contents of her medical records and no fault file, Bruno will not be required to provide a narrative answer to Defendants' Interrogatories numbered 3, 6, 7, 8, 21, and 23. Further, since the medical records will reveal her injuries, Bruno will not have to provide a list of her injuries.

Defendants' Interrogatory Numbered 2

There is some confusion as whether a video tape of Bruno's falling and striking her head exists. Defendants identified another video tape of the incident but it does not depict Bruno falling and striking her head. Defendants will serve upon Bruno another copy of the video that they currently possess. They will search their records to see if there is another video depicting when Bruno may have hit her head on the concrete. Should such tape exist, Defendants shall disclose it to Bruno. And, if none exists, they shall advise Bruno, including any information as to whether it ever existed but is no longer obtainable. To the extent that Bruno may have a video of her falling, she shall disclose it to Defendants.

Bruno believes that the Schenectady County District Attorney may have the video of her falling and striking her head. As explained, it may be difficult to secure that video from the District Attorney, if it exists. Hopefully, Defendants may be able to obtain that video, if it exists, from the District Attorney's Ofice, and, if they are successful, they shall serve a copy upon Bruno. If the Defendants are unable to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.