Burrell v. Van Winkler et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ako Burrell,
Plaintiff,
6:24-CV-1169
(DNH/MJK)
-v.-
Tia Van Winkler,
N. Pezdek, D. Traglia, LaPorte,
D. Bektic and Pelligrino,
Defendants.
Ako Burrell, Plaintiff, pro se
Peter A. McDaniel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General for Defendants
Mitchell J. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court is Burrell’s Motion to Compel Discovery
(Dkt. 42, 50)1 2 and “Motion For Order That Matter Is Admitted On
Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Answer or Object” (Dkt. 45). Defendants
1 The Court notes that Burrell’s motion contains numerous redactions, suggesting
that he utilized the same motions papers in an unrelated action. Specifically, the
Court notes that the civil action number and the defendant’s name from an
unrelated action have been redacted.
2 Burrell’s submission at Dkt. 50 is deemed a reply which is not allowed under Local
Rule 7.1(a)(2) and will not be considered by the Court. Even if considered, Burrell’s
reply would not change the Court’s ruling on his motions.
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 23

2
oppose Burrell’s motions. (Dkt. 46). For the reasons stated below,
Burrell’s motions are denied.
I. 	FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and
procedural history of this matter.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, “[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[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). Rule 26 directs the Court to consider “the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’
relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit.” Id. “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)).
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 23

3
“Motions to compel made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 are
‘entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court.’” Harris v. Bronx
Parent Hous. Network, Inc., No. 18-CV- 11681, 2020 WL 763740, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2020) (quoting United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d
711, 720 (2d Cir. 2000)). Where a party fails to participate or otherwise
cooperate in discovery, the opposing party can seek an order compelling
certain discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
B. Burrell has not complied with N.D.N.Y. Local Rule
37.1
Defendants assert that Burrell’s motions should be denied because
he failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1. (Dkt. 46, Def. Mem. of Law,
pgs. 4-5). Defendants are correct. Local Rule 37.1 requires the following
steps to be taken prior to a party making a discovery motion:
a. Parties must make good faith efforts among themselves to
resolve or reduce all differences relating to discovery prior to
seeking court intervention.
b. The moving party must confer in detail with the opposing party
concerning the discovery issues between them in a good faith
effort to eliminate or reduce the area of controversy and to
arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution. Failure to do so
may result in denial of a motion to compel discovery and/or
imposition of sanctions.
(L.R. 37.1(a), (b)).
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 23

4
On September 25, 2025, Burrell sent Defendants’ counsel a letter
“pointing out their [discovery] responses were a month late and
requesting that they respond immediately.” (Dkt. 42, ¶ 2). Defendants’
counsel contends that “there is no record of [his] office receiving such
correspondence.” (Dkt. 46, Def. Mem. of Law, pg. 5).3 Notably,
Defendants responded to Burrell’s (i) Request For Production of
Documents on July 11, 2025 (Dkt. 42, pg. 15), (ii) Interrogatories served
on Defendant Van Winkler in June 2025 (Dkt. 42, pg. 20), and
(iii) Interrogatories served on Defendant LaPorte in August 2025 (Dkt.
42, pg. 24), prior to the September 2025 letter. Defendants’ discovery
responses contain various objections, and there is nothing in the record
suggesting that Burrell responded to or otherwise made any effort to
resolve them before filing the pending motions.
Burrell further alleges that because Defendants did not respond to
his September 2025 letter, he “wrote to defendants counsel on ____,4 in
an attempt to resolve informally as required by Local Rule.” ((Dkt. 42, ¶
6). Burrell does not (i) provide the date of his second purported letter,
3 All page references are to the CM/ECF pagination system.
4 The blank appears in the original.
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 23

5
(ii) state his objections to Defendants’ discovery responses, and (iii)
indicate how he proposed to resolve his discovery dispute with
Defendants.
Burrell’s pro se status does not excuse his failure to abide by the
Court’s procedural rules. “As has often been recognized by both the
Supreme Court and Second Circuit, even pro se litigants must obey a
district court’s procedural rules.” Cusamano v. Sobek, 604 F. Supp. 2d
416, 426-27 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (citations omitted). And because of his
extensive litigation history, Chief United States District Judge Brenda
K. Sannes revoked Burrell’s special status as a pro se civil rights
litigant. See Burrell v. Global Tel Link, et al., No. 9:24-cv-1377
(BKS/TWD) (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2024). Burrell cannot deny that he is
unfamiliar with the local rules of practice and cannot justify his failure
to comply with the same. Burrell’s motions are therefore denied.5
5 Defendants incorrectly rely on G.O. 25 as a basis for denying Burrell’s motion.
G.O. 25, Section VIII(A) states that “no non-dispositive or discovery motions should
be presented to the Court unless authorized by the Magistrate Judge after
communication with the Magistrate Judge’s chambers.” However, Local Rule 37.1(c)
states in part that “[p]ro se parties who are incarcerated are not subject to the court
conference requirement prior to filing a motion to compel discovery.”
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 23

6
C. Defendants have complied with their discovery
obligations
On March 24, 2025, the Court issued a Mandatory Pretrial
Discovery And Scheduling Order In Civil Rights Actions brought By
Inmates Pro Se (“Scheduling Order”). (Dkt. 29). Section I(A)(2) of the
Scheduling Order required Defendants, within 60 days of March 24,
2025, to:
provide to plaintiff copies of all documents and other materials in
the care, custody, or control of any defendant or the defendant’s
employer if the employer is a public entity such as the New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
(DOCCS) related to the claims or defenses in the case. Where
applicable, such documents and materials shall include those
documents and materials described in Attachment A hereto.6 In
the cases listed in Attachment A hereto, provision of the
documents and materials described therein shall constitute
presumptive compliance with this Order.
On May 23, 2025, within 60 days of the March 24, 2025 Scheduling
Order, Defendants served their initial disclosures on Burrell, consisting
of 277 pages of material. (Dkt. 46-5). Further, Defendants’ discovery
responses, attached by Burrell to his motion papers, prove that they
6 This footnote quotes footnote number “1” from Section I(A)(2) of the Scheduling
Order: “If any document, or any portion thereof, otherwise required to be disclosed
is withheld for any reason, defense counsel shall (a) obtain a complete copy of any
such document and retain the document in counsel’s office until the conclusion of
litigation, and (b) serve a log in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) identifying
any withheld document and the grounds upon which it has been withheld.”
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 6 of 23

7
were served timely. (Dkt. 42, pgs. 9-24). Again, to the extent that
Burrell had specific objections to Defendants’ responses, there is no
evidence in the record that he communicated those objections to
Defendants. And without having made any apparent effort to resolve
his objections, Burrell’s motions are denied.
D. Defendants’ objections to Burrell’s document
demands
Burrell’s motion to compel (Dkt. 42) would be denied even if he
had complied with the Local Rules because his document demands are
overly broad and lack a reasonable degree of specificity.
Burrell requested production of: “(1) All books, memorandum,
ledger; (2) E-mails may be produced in the form of hard copy to the
requesting email system; (3) Emails between ORC Hoskins; and Van
Winkler; (4) Evidence of threats; (5) GPS Regulation; Directive; (6) Use
of Force; (7) Text Messages; (8) NYS DOCCS Parole Manual;7 (9) NYS
DOCCS Parolee Rights; (10) NYS Parole Search and Seizure Policy;
7 Notwithstanding their objections to Demand No. 8, Defendants produced what
they deemed to be documents responsive to this demand at Bates Nos. 84-124. (Dkt.
42, pg. 13).
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 7 of 23

8
(11) NYS DOCCS Parole Training Manual; (12) SPO Pezdek, LaPorte,
Traglia, Bektic & Van Winkler emails pertaining to Plaintiff;8 (13) GPS
Monitor; and (14) Plaintiff entire Parole file.” (Dkt. 42, pgs. 9-15). The
document requests largely lack any degree of specificity to the point
that considering proportionality, Defendants’ objections were proper.
See Kennedy v. Cont. Pharmacal Corp., No. CV 12-2664, 2013 WL
1966219, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2013) (“There is no specificity to the
requests and no effort to limit these requests to any relevant acts
alleged in this action. Lacking relevance and specificity, the requests
are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome”).
E. Burell’s Requests for Admission
Burrell’s motion for an “Order That Matter is Admitted on the
Grounds of Insufficiently of Answer or Object” (Dkt. 45) is denied.
Burrell alleges that Defendants response to his Request For Admissions
“does not contain a specific answer” and “does not [] comply with the
requirements of rule 36(a), nor does it state any objection to movant
request for admission.” (Dkt. 45, ¶ 3). Defendants’ objection, among
8 Notwithstanding their objections to Demand No. 8, Defendants produced what
they deemed to be documents responsive to this demand at Bates Nos. 1-83. (Dkt.
42, pg. 13).
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 8 of 23

9
others, that Burrell’s request “is not simple, direct, nor limited to
singular relevant facts …” was appropriate. (Dkt. 46-7).
Rule 36(a) provides:
(1) Scope. A party may serve on any other party a written
request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the
truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)
relating to:
(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about
either; and
(B) the genuineness of any described documents.
Rule 36(a)(2) provides:
Form: Copy of a Document: Each matter must be
separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a
document must be accompanied by a copy of the document
unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made
available for inspection and copying.
“The requesting party bears the burden of setting forth its
requests simply, directly, not vaguely or ambiguously, and in such a
manner that they can be answered with a simple admit or deny without
an explanation, and in certain instances, permit a qualification or
explanation for purposes of clarification”. Henry v. Champlain
Enterprises, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 73, 77 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). A party on whom a
request for admission has been served may (1) do nothing; (2) move for
an extension; (3) move for a protective order; (4) admit the matter;
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 9 of 23

10
(5) deny the matter; (6) set out the reasons why it cannot truthfully
admit or deny the matter; or (7) object to the request for an admission.
Id. (citing 8B Federal Practice & Procedure § 2259 (Wright & Miller 3d
ed.)).But Rule 36 is “not a discovery device.” T. Rowe Price Small-Cap
Fund v, Oppenheimer & Co., 174 F.R.D, 38, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Burrell’s request does not comply with Rule 36(a)(2). The exhibit
attached to Burrell’s request is a compilation of “over three hundred
pages of paper, some bates stamped and others not, which appear to be
sourced from Plaintiff’s previous litigations.” (Dkt. 46, Defs. Br., pg. 7).
Rule 36(a)(2) requires Burrell to separately present each document that
he wanted Defendants to respond to. Burrell’s failure to do so prevented
Defendants from responding to his demand in a way other than they
did. Defendants’ objection to Burrell’s demand was proper. Accordingly,
Burrell’s motion is denied.
III. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Burrell’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 42,
50) is DENIED, and it is further
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 10 of 23

11
ORDERED, that Burrell’s “Motion For Order That Matter Is
Admitted On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Answer or Object” (Dkt. 45) is
DENIED, and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide Burrell with copies of the
unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance with Lebron v.
Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Dated: March 23, 2026.
____________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 11 of 23

Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2020)
2020 WL 763740
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
2020 WL 763740
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Dwayne HARRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
The BRONX PARENT HOUSING
NETWORK, INC., Defendant.
18-CV-11681 (GBD)(SN)
|
Signed 02/14/2020
Attorneys and Law Firms
Corey Scott Stark, Corey Stark PLLC, New York, NY, for
Plaintiff.
Jennifer A. Redmond, Michelle Adams Callner, Redmond
Law PLLC, New York, NY, for Defendant.
ORDER
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:
*1 Plaintiff Dwayne Harris (“Plaintiff”) alleges defendant
The Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc. (“Defendant”)
wrongfully terminated his employment based on his
disability. Before the Court are several motions. Defendant
seeks a protective order in response to Plaintiff's request
for documents related to retaliation claims filed against
Defendant. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff moves “to compel
Defendant to comply with its discovery obligations.” ECF
No. 35. Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant failed
to respond fully to four interrogatories and seven requests for
documents and moves the Court to compel responses. For the
reasons that follow, Defendant's motion for a protective order
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Plaintiff's
motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 13, 2018, seeking
damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
42 U.S.C. §§ 12010, et seq. (the “ADA”), the New York
Executive Law §§ 290, et seq. (the “NYSHRL”), and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 8-107, et seq.
(the “NYCHRL”) for discrimination and harassment on the
basis of his disability. He alleges that after suffering a stroke
in July 2017, his then-employer, Defendant, refused to engage
in an individualized interactive process or to accommodate
him as required by law. Plaintiff also alleges that eventually,
despite his continued satisfactory performance, Defendant
notified Plaintiff that he would either have to accept a
significant demotion or be fired. Plaintiff claims that he
declined a demotion and that Defendant then terminated his
employment. Discovery in this case in still ongoing.
DISCUSSION
I. Governing Legal Principles
Rule 26(b)(1) recognizes that a party “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 ....” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Rule 26
Advisory Committee Notes to 2015 Amendments; Edebali
v. Bankers Standard Ins. Co., 14-cv-7095 (JSA)(KT), 2016
WL 4621077, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2016). Relevant
information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Id. If the responding party fails to
produce documents, the party seeking discovery may move
for an order compelling an answer, designation, production,
or inspection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). Motions to compel
made pursuant to Rule 37 are “entrusted to the sound
discretion of the district court.” United States v. Sanders, 211
F.3d 711, 720 (2d Cir. 2000).
A. Interrogatories
Rule 33 provides that a “party may serve on any other party
no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete
subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Interrogatories “may relate
to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b) ...
[and] [are] not objectionable merely because [they] asks for
an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application
of law to fact ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding
party is required to answer each interrogatory “separately and
fully under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). The Rule explicitly
requires the responding party to “provide the best answer they
can based upon information within their possession.” Edebali,
2016 WL 4621077, at *2.
*2 In order to ensure that each interrogatory is answered
“separately” and “fully” under Rule 33(b)(3), the responding
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 12 of 23

Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2020)
2020 WL 763740
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
party is required “to make an inquiry and obtain information
to answer the interrogatories which would include obtaining
the information to fully and completely answer the
interrogatories ....” Upstate Shredding, LLC v. Ne. Ferrous,
Inc., 3:12-cv-1015, 2016 WL 865299 (LEK)(DEP), at *8
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2016); see Zanowic v. Reno, 97-cv-5292,
2000 WL 1376251 (JGK)(HBP), at *3 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25,
2000) (“In responding to interrogatories ... a party is under a
duty to make a reasonable inquiry concerning the information
sought in the interrogatories, and a party's failure to describe
his efforts to obtain the information sought ... renders his
responses insufficient.”). Where a party, despite conducting a
diligent inquiry, is nevertheless unable to provide a responsive
answer, any efforts utilized should be set forth in detail to
ensure a sufficient response is interposed. See Edebali, 2016
WL 4621077, at *2. Further, “an answer to an interrogatory
must be completed within itself and, it should be in a
form that may be used at trial ... [Therefore] [r]eference
to depositions, other answers to the interrogatories, other
document production, the complaint itself, or any other
documents are improper and thus unresponsive.” Id.
B. Requests for Production
“A party may serve on any other party a request within the
scope of Rule 26(b)” to produce any designated documents
or permit their inspection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each
item or category, the response must either state that inspection
and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an
objection to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 34. If the responding party fails to produce documents, the
party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling
an answer, designation, production, or inspection. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B); see also Wright v. New Moda, L.L.C., 17-
cv-9737 (JGK)(SN), 2019 WL 2071158, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May
10, 2019). If the requested documentation does not exist, the
responding party's good-faith averment will resolve the issue
of the failure of production. Menard v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
14-cv-6325 (VB), 2015 WL 5472724, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 2,
2015).
C. Standard for Objections
“A party resisting discovery has the burden of showing
‘specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction
afforded the federal discovery rules, each interrogatory
is not relevant or how each question is overly broad,
burdensome or oppressive ... by submitting affidavits or
offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden.’
” Pegoraro v. Marrero, 281 F.R.D. 122, 128 (S.D.N.Y.
2012) (quoting Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le
Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D.
16, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (citation omitted)). “The grounds for
objecting to any interrogatory must be stated with specificity.
Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived
unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). “General and conclusory objections
as to relevance, overbreadth, or burden are insufficient to
exclude discovery of requested information.” Melendez v.
Greiner, 01-cv-7888 (SAS)(DF), 2003 WL 22434101, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2003). Boilerplate objections that include
unsubstantiated claims of undue burden, overbreadth and lack
of relevancy, accompanied by a lack of document production
or interrogatory responses, “are a paradigm of discovery
abuse.” Jacoby v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 254
F.R.D. 477, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
II. Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order
Defendant seeks a protective order in response to
Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11, seeking “all retaliation
complaints made against Rivera and [Defendant];” Document
Request No. 27, seeking “retaliation complaints or charges,
whether formal or informal, made by any person against
Rivera and/or [Defendant];” and Document Requests Nos.
28 and 29, seeking “[a]ll Documents relating to any
litigation – pending, threatened, or completed – concerning ...
retaliation raised by any person against either Rivera and/
or [Defendant].” See ECF No. 33. Defendant argues that
whether other employees filed claims of retaliation against
Defendant is not relevant to this case, in which Plaintiff does
not allege retaliation. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to
information about any retaliation claims against Defendant
because they are relevant to claims of discrimination against
the Defendant.
*3 Other claims of discrimination against a defendant are
discoverable if limited to the same form of discrimination.
See Vuona v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 10-cv-6529 (PAE), 2011
WL 5553709, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2011). Other claims
of discrimination, in this context, refers to discrimination
based on the same protected characteristic. See id. (holding
that plaintiff claiming gender discrimination was entitled to
discover other claims of gender discrimination but not entitled
to “non-gender-based complaints”); Bolia v. Mercury Print
Prods., Inc., 02-cv-6510T (MWP), 2004 WL 2526407, at *2
(W.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2004) (holding that plaintiff was entitled
only to “general discovery ... relating to discrimination
claims” based on “age or disability” because those types
of claims were at issue in the case). The ADA prohibits
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 13 of 23

Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2020)
2020 WL 763740
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
retaliation against an individual who has “opposed any act
or practice made unlawful under the ADA.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12203. Although Plaintiff does not claim retaliation,
whether other employees have been retaliated against in
connecting with disability discrimination is relevant to
Plaintiff's claims. If a pattern of discrimination exists, it
may show that Defendant's proffered reasons for its decision
regarding Plaintiff is pretextual. See Moll v. Telesector Res.
Grp., Inc., 760 F.3d 198, 204 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Evidence
relating to company-wide practices may reveal patterns of
discrimination against a group of employees, increasing
the likelihood that an employer's offered explanation for
an employment decision regarding a particular individual
masks a discriminatory motive.”) (quoting Hollander v. Am.
Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80, 84 (2d Cir. 1990)). To the
extent Plaintiff seeks the identification of other claims of
retaliation, he is entitled to the identification of claims of
retaliation based on allegations of disability discrimination
only. Defendant's request for a protective order is DENIED
in part and Defendant is directed to respond to Interrogatories
Nos. 10, 11 and Document Requests 27-29 to the extent based
on disability discrimination and filed within the past three
years. Defendant's request is GRANTED in all other respects.
III. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Plaintiff seeks additional responses to four Interrogatories
(Nos. 6, 13, 19, 20) and seven requests for document
production (Request Nos. 3, 4, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22). See ECF
No. 35.
A. Interrogatories
First, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to identify “each
employee Defendant terminated during the Relevant Time
Period” (Interrogatory No. 6). Plaintiff contends that other
employees may be his comparators and whether Defendant
terminated other disabled employees is relevant. Defendant
claims that the Interrogatory is overbroad and vague, seeks
disclosure of personal and private information concerning
employees other than Plaintiff for a period of time that pre-
dates and post-dates Plaintiff's employment, and “constitutes
an overbroad fishing expedition” for irrelevant information.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks information about other disabled
employees who were disciplined or terminated for the same
or similar reasons as him, this information is likely relevant
to Plaintiff's claims. Interrogatory No. 6, however, is not
written to achieve the discovery of that information in
reasonable manner. The request is overbroad, and to the
extent it seeks relevant information, such information will
be provided in response to Plaintiff's other interrogatories
about discrimination claims. Plaintiff's request regarding
Interrogatory No. 6 is DENIED.
Second, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to identify
“all documents concerning the interactive process that
[Defendant] engaged in during the Relevant Time Period
concerning Plaintiff” (Interrogatory No. 13). Defendant
opposes on the grounds that the request seeks “information
that pre-dates and post-dates Plaintiff's employment ... is
not relevant to any claims or defenses ... constitutes an
overly broad fishing expedition ... [and] is vague and
incomprehensible ....” This request is specifically related
to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants did not engage in
the requisite interactive process with him. Defendant has
not met its burden of demonstrating that the requested
discovery is overly broad, or offered any specific objection
to the request. If Defendant cannot identify any documents
concerning the interactive process between Defendant and
Plaintiff, Defendant must state so. Plaintiff's request regarding
Interrogatory No. 13 is GRANTED.
Third, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to identify “any
documents concerning any complaints about Plaintiff's work
performance” (Interrogatory No. 19). Defendant responds
by directing Plaintiff to 13 documents, already produced
and identified by Bates numbers. Plaintiff's response is that
these documents are non-responsive. To the extent there are
additional documents concerning complaints about Plaintiff's
work performance, Defendant is to identify them. Defendant
also must indicate whether all documents responsive to
the Interrogatory have been identified. Plaintiff's request
regarding Interrogatory No. 19 is GRANTED.
*4 Finally, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to
identify “all persons [Defendant] offered to demote to
avoid terminating them” (Interrogatory No. 20). Defendant
objects on the grounds that this request is “incomprehensible,
not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation,
irrelevant as it seeks information concerning employees other
than Plaintiff, and requires the adoption of the disputed
assumption that Defendant offered to demote employees
to avoid terminating them ....” Whether Defendant took
similar adverse employment action against other individuals
similarly situated to Plaintiff is relevant. Plaintiff is entitled to
know the identity of other employees during the relevant time
period who were offered a demotion to avoid termination.
Plaintiff's request is GRANTED and the Court directs
Defendant to respond to Interrogatory No. 20.
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 14 of 23

Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2020)
2020 WL 763740
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
B. Document Requests
1. Work Performance Assessments
Plaintiff seeks “[a]ll appraisals or assessments of Plaintiff's
work performance” (Request No. 3), “[a]ll draft appraisals or
assessments of Plaintiff's work performance” (Request No.
4), “a copy of all communications with or about Plaintiff’
that concern Plaintiff's work performance” (Request No.
19), and “[a]ll [d]ocuments concerning any complaints about
Plaintiff's work performance” (Request No. 21).
Defendant objects to each on the grounds that these requests
are duplicative. I do not find the requests duplicative,
although they are undoubtedly similar in nature. For each of
these requests, Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents
previously produced. As discussed in this Order, and as
stated at the conference dated December 13, 2019, this is
not a complete response. To the extent there are additional
documents, other than those produced to date, responsive to
the requests, Defendant should produce them. If no other
responsive documents exist, Defendant must indicate as
much. Finally, Defendant argues that Request Nos. 19 and
21 are “overbroad” because they seek “all” communications
(Request No. 19) and “all” documents (Request No. 21).
These requests are not overbroad. Defendant has made no
specific showing that producing “all” documents responsive
to these relevant requests would be overly burdensome.
Plaintiff's motions regarding Request Nos. 3, 4, 19, and 21 are
GRANTED.
2. Discipline Records
Plaintiff seeks “Each Document that concerns any Discipline
imposed upon Plaintiff” (request No. 17). Defendant objects
on the grounds that this request is “unduly burdensome,”
that the definition of the term “discipline” is overbroad,
vague, and contradictory, and that the request is duplicative
of Request Nos. 3, 4, 12, 15, 19, and 21. I find each of
these objections without merit. Defendant offers no more than
conclusory reasons why this request is improper, and has
made no specific showing that the request would be overly
burdensome, as is required to defeat a motion to compel.
Plaintiff's motion regarding Request No. 17 is GRANTED.
3. Interactive Process Documents
Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to “All Documents
concerning the interactive process that [Defendant]
engaged in during the Relevant Time Period concerning
Plaintiff” (Request No. 20). Defendant objects on the
grounds that this request is “incomprehensible and vague
and overbroad as is seeks ‘All Documents,’ ” and refers to
several documents already produced. Plaintiff states that the
identified documents are not responsive.
Plaintiff is entitled to all documents concerning the interactive
process for the reasons discussed above in connection
with Interrogatory No. 13. Defendant merely repeats its
standardized objections in response to this request and does
not make the requisite specific showing that production
of these documents would be unduly burdensome. If no
other responsive documents exist, Defendant must indicate
as much. Plaintiff's motion regarding Request No. 20 is
GRANTED.
4. Personnel Files for Plaintiff's Replacement(s)
*5 Plaintiff finally argues that he is entitled to the
personnel files of any individuals who replaced him
(Request No. 22). Defendant objects on the grounds that
the request is overbroad, not relevant and vague. This is an
unsupported position; Plaintiff is entitled to the personnel
file of any of his replacements. See Go v. Rockefeller
Univ., 280 F.R.D. 165, 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Defendant
indicates that notwithstanding its objections, it is “in the
process of compiling ... and redacting private information
from these files.” Defendant has not justified redactions
of the information of individual replacement employees.
Accordingly, the responsive documents are to be produced to
Plaintiff's counsel. Defendant may designate these documents
confidential and redact any sensitive information, such as
social security numbers, contained therein. Plaintiff's counsel
is directed to comply with the following orders: Plaintiff's
counsel may show or disclose the documents’ contents only
to other employees of his law firm, to Plaintiff, and to trial
witnesses and consultants, and only to the extent necessary
for trial preparation. The individuals to whom the documents’
contents are disclosed are also prohibited from using that
information for any purpose other than trial preparation.
Plaintiff's counsel is to maintain physical custody of the
documents, as well as of all copies, and is to utilize them
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 15 of 23

Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2020)
2020 WL 763740
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
solely for purposes of this litigation. Moreover, all such
confidential documents and all copies are to be returned
to Defendant's counsel at the conclusion of the litigation.
Plaintiff's motions regarding Request No. 22 is GRANTED
subject to the directives herein.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's motion for a protective order is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff's motion to compel
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is
directed to provide Plaintiff with supplemental responses
that comply with this Order within 10 days. The Court,
in the exercise of discretion, will not impose sanctions on
Defendant for necessitating Plaintiff's motion, despite the
fact that Defendant's positions for refusing to comply with
Plaintiff's routine discovery demands were not substantially
justified in this case, as the Court strongly implied during the
conference held December 13, 2019.
Additionally, at the upcoming discovery conference
scheduled below, the Court will address, among other issues,
Defendant's refusal to produce fact witnesses for depositions.
The Court notes in advance of that conference that Defendant
should be making every effort to cooperate in producing fact
witnesses for depositions. If Defendant does not intend to
produce such witnesses, it must immediately provide contact
information so that Plaintiff may subpoena them.
Finally, the Court hereby enters the following schedule:
(1) A discovery conference to address the issues raised
in Plaintiff's February 6, 2020 Letter is scheduled for
Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom
219, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
New York, New York. If this date is unavailable for
any party, they must contact Courtroom Deputy Rachel
Slusher immediately at (212) 805-0286.
(2) All discovery in this case shall close March 20, 2020.
(3) Any party that wishes to move for summary judgment
shall do so by April 17, 2020.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motions at Docket Nos. 33 and 35.
SO ORDERED.
All Citations
Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 763740
End of Document © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 16 of 23

Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc.
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Filings (1)
Title PDF Court Date Type
1. Docket 1:18-CV-11681
Harris v. The Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc.
— S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2018 Docket
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 17 of 23

Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc.
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
History
There are no History results for this citation.
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 18 of 23

Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc.
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 19 of 23

Kennedy v. Contract Pharmacal Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2013)
2013 WL 1966219
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
2013 WL 1966219
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,
E.D. New York.
Alanna M. KENNEDY, Plaintiff(s),
v.
CONTRACT PHARMACAL CORP.,
and Matthew Wolf, Defendant(s).
No. CV 12–2664(JFB)(ETB).
|
May 13, 2013.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Edward J. Kennedy, Jesse Curtis Rose, Phillips & Assciates,
Attorneys at Law, PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff(s).
Kenneth A. Novikoff, Scott Green, Rivkin Radler LLP,
Uniondale, NY, for Defendant(s).
ORDER
E. THOMAS BOYLE, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 This is a Title VII action wherein the plaintiff, Alanna
M. Kennedy, seeks damages arising from alleged acts of
gender discrimination and hostile work environment, sexual
harassment and retaliation against the defendant employer,
Contract Pharmacal Corp. (“CPC”), and Matthew Wolf, the
corporate defendant CEO.
The defendants seek to compel responses to interrogatory
requests numbers 9 and 10. Plaintiff objects on the
ground that the interrogatories are narrative in nature
and should be covered by a deposition and on the
ground that the interrogatories exceed twenty-five, including
discrete subparts. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1). I agree. The
interrogatories, while sixteen in number, contain twenty-
seven subparts and are therefore excessive in number.
See Cramer v. Fedco Aut. Components Co., Inc., No.
01–CV–0757E, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13817, at * 14,
2004 WL 1574691 (W.D.N.Y. May 26, 2004) (denying
plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to interrogatories
where interrogatories, including subparts, exceeded twenty-
five); Riddle v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 1374,
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14378, at *3, 2003 WL 21982967
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2003) (“Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a) limits the
number of interrogatories available to each party to twenty-
five, ‘including all discrete subparts.’ ”).
In addition, the interrogatories basically seek narrative
information that may more readily be developed at a
deposition, e.g., “identify the nature of and describe the
allegedly discriminatory and harassing conduct,” persons
present, dates and locations where discriminatory acts
occurred and the circumstances relating to any reporting.
See Interrogatory No. 10. Similar issues are raised solely
addressed to any alleged retaliatory acts. See Interrogatory
No. 10. These issues, narrative in nature, should be pursued
at a deposition. See E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank,
AG, No. 05 Civ. 902, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82428, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Nov.10, 2006) (“To the extent that Plaintiffs seek
long narrative explanations of underlying assumptions and
methodologies, they have not shown that interrogatories are a
more practical means of discovery than depositions.”); Rivers
v. Safesite Nat'l Bus. Records Mgmt. Corp., No. 94 Civ. 5323,
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 1995)
(striking defendants' interrogatories because they “call[ed] for
repeated detailed narratives of the events at issue in [the]
case”).
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to compel interrogatory
responses is denied.
The defendants also seek to compel the following document
demands: (1) “[a]ll documents concerning, relating to,
reflecting and/or regarding Plaintiff's utilization of social
networking sites,” Document Request No. 11; (2) “[a]ll
documents, including, but not limited to postings, concerning,
relating to, reflecting and/or regarding Plaintiff's expression
of an emotional feeling while utilizing a social networking
site,” Document Request No. 12; and (3) “[a]ll documents,
including, but not limited to postings, concerning, relating
to, reflecting and/or regarding Plaintiff's employment with
Defendants while utilizing a social networking site,”
Document Request No. 13. Plaintiff objects on the ground
that all of these requests are “vague, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome.” Id.
*2 The objections are sustained. There is no specificity
to the requests and no effort to limit these requests to any
relevant acts alleged in this action. Lacking relevance and
specificity, the requests are vague, overly broad and unduly
burdensome. See Pegoraro v. Marrero, 281 F.R.D. 122,
133 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.2, 2012) (sustaining vagueness objection
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 20 of 23

Kennedy v. Contract Pharmacal Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2013)
2013 WL 1966219
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
where document request used phrase “acts involving the
conduct of plaintiff”); Kelleher v. City of New York, No.
CV–06–2702, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1831, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Jan.10, 2007) (sustaining defendant's objections to document
requests where “court fails to see the relevance of the
requested information to the plaintiff's claims”).
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to compel is
denied.
SO ORDERED:
All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1966219
End of Document © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 21 of 23

Kennedy v. Contract Pharmacal Corp.
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Filings (2)
Title PDF Court Date Type
1. Contract
Alanna M. KENNEDY, Plaintiff, v. PHARMACAL CORP.,
and Matthew Wolf, individually, Defendants.
2012 WL 4890055
E.D.N.Y. May 25, 2012 Pleading
2. Docket 2:12cv02664
KENNEDY v. CONTRACT PHARMACAL CORP. ET AL
— E.D.N.Y. May 25, 2012 Docket
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 22 of 23

Kennedy v. Contract Pharmacal Corp.
© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
History
There are no History results for this citation.
Case 6:24-cv-01169-DNH-MJK Document 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 23 of 23