United States District Court, N.D. New York
OF JESSICA M. GORMAN JESSICA M. GORMAN, ESQ. Attorney for
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN CATHY Y. SHEEHAN, ESQ. ORIANA L.
CARRAVETTA, ESQ. Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorney for Defendants Racette, Kelly, Goodman, Waite, and
Jenkins Assistant Attorney Generals.
LAMARCHE, SAFRANKO LAW FIRM ANDREW R. SAFRANKO, ESQ. Attorney
for Defendant Frazier.
HARRIS, CONWAY LAW FIRM RYAN T. DONOVAN, ESQ. Attorney for
MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP JEFFREY P. MANS, ESQ. Attorney
for Defendants and Counter Claimants Beecher, Burch, and
DECISION AND ORDER
J. STEWART UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Rodney Ferrer moves to quash a subpoena issued, after the
close of discovery, by Attorney Jeffrey Mans, who is counsel
for several of the Defendants. Dkt. No. 113 & 117. The
subpoena in question seeks to require the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
(“DOCCS”) to disclose certain Inmate
Informational Reports relating to Plaintiff during a
six-month period of time from June 1, 2011 to November 30,
2011. Id. The Defendants oppose the Motion to Quash.
Dkt. No. 116. For the reasons that follow, the
Plaintiff's request to quash the subpoena is granted.
November 12, 2014, Plaintiff, by his counsel, filed a civil
rights Complaint against several DOCCS employees arising out
of various incidents which allegedly occurred at the Great
Meadow Correctional Facility, culminating in an allegedly
unlawful and wrongful assault of Plaintiff on November 15,
2011. Dkt. No. 1, Compl., at ¶¶ 19-67. Plaintiff
alleges that as a result of Defendants' misconduct, he
was “seriously injured.” Id. at
¶¶ 88, 93, & 105.
case has been in the discovery phase for over a year. On
October 28, 2015, the Court issued a Uniform Pretrial
Scheduling Order (“UPSO”), which directed that
discovery be completed by June 17, 2016. Dkt. No. 45. Since
the issuance of the UPSO, the parties have sought Court
intervention regarding several discovery disputes, and have
sought extensions of the discovery deadline, which were
granted. See Dkt. Nos. 68, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 87,
88, 89, 92, 94, & 104 (orders issued regarding discovery
disputes after discovery telephone conference held); Dkt.
Nos. 68 (Text Order reserving on extension request until
status report filed on July 18, 2016); 91 (Text Order
extending discovery, at request of the parties, to December
30, 2016); 103 (Text Order extending discovery, at request of
the parties, to February 28, 2017). Despite short extensions
granted in order to complete certain depositions,
discovery deadline ended on February 28, 2017.
about March 16, 2017, counsel for Defendants Beecher, Burch,
and McClenning, issued a subpoena to DOCCS requesting
“[c]ertified copies of all Inmate Informational Reports
from Great Meadow Correctional Facility regarding the
plaintiff, inmate Rodney Ferrer (DIN 08-A-2299) from June 1,
2011 to November 30, 2011.” Dkt. No. 115. The original
subpoena was dated March 16, 2017, and called for the
production of the requested information on March 24, 2017.
Id. But, the subpoena was not served upon
Plaintiff's counsel until March 22, 2017. Dkt. No.
On that date Plaintiff's counsel wrote to the Court
requesting an immediate telephone conference. Id.
That request was granted and a conference with all counsel
and the Court was held the next day. See Text Minute
Entry, dated Mar. 24, 2017. At that time, I directed
additional briefing from the parties, and further directed
that DOCCS submit the disputed documents directly to the
Court for an in camera review. Id. That
supplemental briefing has now been submitted, Dkt. Nos. 116
& 117, and the disputed documents were supplied on May 1,
Court has broad discretion to manage and direct the discovery
process in the cases before it. Wills v. Amerada Hess
Corp., 379 F.3d 32, 41 (2d Cir. 2004); McKay v.
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth., et al, 2007 WL
3275918 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2007). In the present case,
the Court issued a UPSO, which was then modified on several
occasions to comport with the realities of litigation and the
desires of the parties. However, the final deadline for
discovery, February 28, 2017 (with the exception of a single
deposition), has now expired. No request for an extension of
the UPSO has been made by Attorney Mans, or any other
light of the foregoing, the question then becomes whether it
is appropriate for counsel to issue a subpoena in order to
obtain discovery information after the discovery deadline has