Bradshaw v. Caldwell et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
DARRYL BRADSHAW,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
6:24-CV-6488 CJS CDH
v.
JAMES CALDWELL, et al.,
Defendants
_______________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Darryl Bradshaw (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), has
asserted a claim of excessive force against defendants James Caldwell, McCoy,
Malkowski, and Parsell (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See
Dkt. 1; Dkt. 3 at 12). Plaintiff specifically alleges that on April 1, 2024, Defendants
escorted him to a vacant cell in the Lakeview Shock Incarceration Correctional
Facility and proceeded to strike him, causing injuries to his face and body. (Dkt. 1 at
4; Dkt. 3 at 3).
Defendants have filed a motion to extend the discovery deadlines (Dkt. 26) and
a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ discovery demands pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (Dkt. 27). For the reasons that follow,
Defendants’ motions are granted.
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 10

- 2 -
BACKGROUND
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all non-dispositive
pretrial proceedings. (Dkt. 11). 	The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the
factual and procedural background of this matter for purposes of this Decision and
Order. The facts and procedure salient to the instant motion are summarized below.
At the outset of this matter, United States District Judge Charles J. Siragusa
screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(a).
(Dkt. 3). Plaintiff was permitted to proceed to service on a claim that Defendants used
excessive force upon him. (Dkt. 3 at 12). All Plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed
with prejudice. (Id.).
On March 13, 2025, Defendants served their “First Set of Interrogatories and
Demand for Documents” (Dkt. 20; Dkt. 27-1 at ¶ 4; Dkt. 27-2) and a notice scheduling
Plaintiff’s deposition for July 25, 2025 (Dkt. 21; Dkt. 27-1 at ¶ 4). On April 29, 2025,
having received no response to their demands, Defendants wrote a letter to Plaintiff
asking if he required additional time to respond. (Dkt. 27-1 at ¶ 5; Dkt. 27-3 at 2).
Plaintiff failed to respond to this letter. (Dkt. 27-1 at ¶ 6).
Thereafter, Defendants requested that the Court hold a telephone discovery
conference to resolve the outstanding discovery issues. (Id.). The Court held a
discovery conference on June 13, 2025, during which the parties agreed that Plaintiff
would respond to Defendants’ interrogatories within 30 days, or by July 13, 2025.
(Dkt. 24; Dkt. 27-1 at ¶ 6). On July 1, 2025, Defendants served an amended deposition
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 10

- 3 -
notice on Plaintiff, moving his deposition to August 15, 2025. (Dkt. 25; Dkt. 27-1 at
¶ 6).
Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ interrogatories by the agreed-upon
date of July 13, 2025. (Dkt. 27-1 at ¶ 7). On July 28, 2025, Defendants filed a motion
for an extension of the deadline to complete discovery along with concomitant
extensions of related deadlines. (Dkt. 26 at 1). Defendants argue these extensions are
required “[g]iven the practical need for Plaintiff’s responses and disclosures before
deposition, and the likelihood of motion practice[.]” (Id.).
On July 29, 2025, Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Rule 37 asking the
Court to compel Plaintiff to respond to their written discovery demands served on
March 13, 2025, and to preclude any forthcoming objections to those demands as
untimely. (Dkt. 27). Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s responses [are needed] to
identify witnesses and material evidence as well as to explore matters relevant to his
claims,” such as “probing the history of the parties’ interactions and relationships;
and understanding the nature, extent, scope and cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.”
(Dkt. 27-4 at 2, 4; Dkt. 27-1 at ¶ 8; Dkt. 27-4 at 4).
On August 11, 2025, the Court received a copy of a letter sent by Plaintiff to
Defendants’ counsel, arguing that he is unable to provide Defendants with the
documents they have requested because on August 4, 2025, “DOCCS [] impos[ed] a
2,000-day loss of property sanction upon [him] . . . [and] sentenced [him] to 365 days
of SHU confinement.” (Dkt. 30 at 1). Plaintiff claims that unless DOCCS is forced to
return his property, he “cannot litigate this matter[.]” (Id.).
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 10

- 4 -
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. . . . Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1). Under Rule 37, following a good-faith effort to meet and confer and upon
notice to all parties, “a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “Motions to compel made pursuant to Rule 37 are
‘entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court.’” Harris v. Bronx Parent Hous.
Network, Inc., No. 18-CV-11681 GBDSN, 2020 WL 763740, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14,
2020) (quoting U.S. v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 720 (2d Cir. 2000)). “A district court
has broad latitude to determine the scope of discovery and to manage the discovery
process.” EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 207 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing In
re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d Cir. 2008)), aff’d sub
nom. Republic of Argentina v. NML Cap., Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014).
II. 	Failure to Provide Answers to Interrogatories
“[A] 	party 	may 	serve 	on 	any 	other 	party 	no 	more 	than 	25 	written
interrogatories[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). “The rule governing interrogatories
provides . . . that each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be
answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Richard v. Dignean, 332 F.R.D.
450, 457 (W.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal quotation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(3).
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 10

- 5 -
In this case, after serving their discovery demands and receiving no responses
for over a month, Defendants wrote to Plaintiff asking if he needed additional time
to respond. (Dkt. 27-1 at ¶ 5). Receiving no answer, Defendants requested a
conference with the Court. (Dkt. 22). As a result of that conference, the parties agreed
that Plaintiff would respond to Defendants’ interrogatories within 30 days. (Dkt. 24).
Only after Plaintiff failed to comply with that agreement did Defendants make the
instant motion to compel. (See Dkt. 27). Plaintiff has also taken the position that he
cannot comply with Defendants’ discovery requests in the foreseeable future. (See
Dkt. 30 at 1). Thus, the record before the Court establishes that the “meet and confer”
requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) have been satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); see Veleron
Holding, B.V. v. BNP Paribas SA, No. 12-CV-5966 (CM)(RLE), 2014 WL 4184806, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2014) (“Courts have excused the meet-and-confer requirement
where . . . efforts at informal compromise would have been clearly futile.” (internal
quotation omitted)). The Court also finds, and Plaintiff has not disputed, that
Defendants’ demands appear relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, as
required by Rule 26(b)(1).
There is no question that Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to Defendants’
interrogatories. (Dkt. 27 at 1; see also Dkt. 30 at 1). Plaintiff’s contention that he
“can’t provide [Defendants] with the documents [they] are requesting” due to the
sanctions imposed on him by DOCCS (Dkt. 30 at 1 (emphasis added)) does not address
Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ interrogatories. See Yong Biao Ji v. Aily
Foot Relax Station Inc., No. 19-CIV-11881 (VB) (JCM), 2021 WL 1930362, at *2
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 10

- 6 -
(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2021) (“To the extent an interrogatory is not objectionable, the
responding party is required to ‘provide the best answer they can based upon current
information in their possession.’” (quoting Trueman v. N.Y. State Canal Corp., No.
09-CV-049 (LEK) (RFT), 2010 WL 681341, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2010)). Plaintiff
makes no showing that his conditions of confinement prevent him from sending
written communications to Defendants, such as responses to their interrogatories. 1
To the contrary, Plaintiff was able to send written communications regarding his
conditions of confinement and a subsequent change of address. (See Dkt. 30; Dkt. 31);
see also Arnold v. Cnty. of Westchester, No. 16-CV-9552, 2018 WL 11273645, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2018) (dismissing the plaintiff’s case in part because “Plaintiff failed
to comply with his discovery obligations, despite communicating with the Court on
other issues.”).
Further, by Plaintiff’s own admission, the discipline of which he complains
occurred on August 4, 2025 (see Dkt. 30 at 1), 23 days after the deadline agreed upon
by the parties at the discovery conference, and nearly four months after the deadline
set by Defendants’ demands and the Federal Rules. (Dkt. 24; see also Dkt. 27-2 at 2;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(2)(A)). Defendants’ interrogatories also
provide 	accommodation 	for 	Plaintiff’s 	circumstance 	in 	stating 	that 	if 	any
interrogatories cannot be answered fully despite due diligence, Plaintiff may: (1)
1 	Although incarceration may create special challenges for pro se litigants, it
does not relieve a plaintiff of his obligation to participate in discovery. See Kenneth v.
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 03-CV-521F, 2007 WL 3533887, at *18 (W.D.N.Y.
Nov. 13, 2007).
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 10

- 7 -
“answer to the fullest extent possible;” (2) state the reasons for a partial answer; and
(3) state any knowledge he has regarding a partial answer. (Dkt. 27-2 at 3).
For all these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed, without
adequate justification, to timely respond to Defendants’ interrogatories. The Court
therefore orders Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories within
30 days of entry of this Decision and Order, based upon the current information in
his possession. A copy of Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Demand for
Documents (Dkt. 20) will be mailed to Plaintiff with this Decision and Order.
III. 	Failure to Produce Responsive Documents
Rule 34(a)(1) requires a party to produce relevant documents in the party’s
“possession, 	custody, 	or 	control.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	34(a)(1). 	Under this 	rule, 	a
responding party is required “to conduct a reasonable and diligent search for
responsive documents[.]” Wilson v. Town of Cheektowaga, No. 18-CV-1255W(F), 2021
WL 195348, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2021) (quoting Gainer v. United Auto. Aerospace
Agric. Implement Workers (UAW), No. 08-CV-0501-W MS-MJR, 2016 WL 9455264, at
*5 	(W.D.N.Y. 	Mar. 17, 	2016)). 	“The 	responding 	party 	then 	must 	produce 	the
requested documents ‘or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request,
including the reasons’” within 30 days. Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v.
TriZetto Grp., Inc., 328 F.R.D. 450, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2)(A), (B), (C)).
Here, Rule 34(b)(2) required actual production of the sought materials and for
Plaintiff to “respond in writing within 30 days after being served” on March 13, 2025.
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 7 of 10

- 8 -
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A), (B); (see Dkt. 20). As discussed above, Plaintiff blames his
current conditions of confinement, including a “loss of property sanction,” for his
failure to respond to document demands. (Dkt. 30 at 1). The Court notes again that
the loss of property sanction was not, by Plaintiff’s own recounting, imposed until
well after his deadline for production had expired. Plaintiff has offered no explanation
for his failure to comply with his discovery obligations before the loss of property
sanction was imposed. Moreover, even if Plaintiff is not currently in possession of
responsive documents, that does not prevent him from providing a written response
to Defendants’ document demands.
Arnold v. County of Westchester is instructive. There, the court dismissed the
plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute after he declared he would not comply with
discovery demands. Arnold, 2018 WL 11273645, at *3. This occurred after a series of
failures to comply with discovery demands, including after the court ordered the
plaintiff to comply with demands within 60 days. Id. at *1. After that deadline passed,
the plaintiff informed the court that he could not comply with discovery demands “due
to his current incarceration and his inability to gather the dispersed discovery
documents[.]” Id. Ultimately, the court ordered dismissal in part because the plaintiff
“failed to comply with his discovery obligations, despite communicating with the
[c]ourt on other issues” and “made [no] attempt to mitigate his non-compliance, for
example by turning over some information and explaining to Defendants and the
Court why he cannot obtain and turn over other information.” Id. at *2.
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 8 of 10

- 9 -
Here, as already discussed, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he can transmit
written communications, and there thus appears to be no barrier to him providing a
written response to Defendants’ document demands. See Id. Consequently, the Court
directs Plaintiff to respond in writing to each of Defendants’ First Demand for
Documents within 30 days of entry of this Decision and Order.
IV. 	Waiver of Plaintiff’s Future Objections
“[T]here is consistent authority that a failure to serve timely responses to
interrogatories and document requests serves as a waiver of objections.” Senat v. City
of N.Y., 255 F.R.D. 338, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4)); see also
Gesualdi v. Interstate Payroll Co., Inc., No. 14 CV 6780 ADS SIL, 2016 WL 737909,
at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016) (same); Stabile v. United Recovery Servs., L.P., No. 11-
CV-1152 SJF WDW, 2011 WL 6448189, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2011) (“[D]efendants’
failure to timely respond results in a waiver of all objections as to the interrogatories
and all objections to the document demands except those based on privilege.” (citation
omitted)). However, the Court may excuse the failure to timely assert an objection for
good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); McKissick v. Three Deer Ass’n Ltd. P’ship, 265
F.R.D. 55, 57 (D. Conn. 2010) (finding the interests of justice “would be best served
by allowing the defendants to have an opportunity to voice their objections to the
plaintiff’s requests, ‘lest a federal court be compelled to order the production of every
piece of paper in the Pentagon because of a tardy objection to a request to produce
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 9 of 10

- 10 -
them’” (quoting Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 238 F.R.D. 536,
539 (D. Conn. 2006)).
Defendants 	seek 	an 	order 	“precluding 	any 	forthcoming 	objections 	to
[Defendants’] demands as untimely.” (Dkt. 27 at 1). The Court declines to address
any potential future objections at this stage of the proceedings, where Plaintiff has
interposed no objections and has expressed no intent to levy any in the future. Under
the circumstances, any ruling on this issue would be premature.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (Dkt. 27). Plaintiff is ordered to
provide responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Demand for
Documents no later than 30 days from entry of this Decision and Order. The Court
also finds good cause to grant Defendants’ motion for an extension of the deadline to
complete discovery along with a concomitant extension of related deadlines (Dkt. 26)
and thus grants that motion. An amended scheduling order will follow entry of this
Decision and Order.
SO ORDERED.
________________________________
COLLEEN D. HOLLAND
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: 	Rochester, New York
December 29, 2025
______________	____	__	__	____	__	__	___	__	___	__ _____________	__	__ __	__	____	_____	__	_________
OLLEEN D HOL	OL	OL	LLA	LAND	N
Case 6:24-cv-06488-CJS-CDH Document 32 Filed 12/29/25 Page 10 of 10