Burrell v. Central New York Psychiatric Center et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
AKO K. BURRELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 9:22-CV-344
(GTS/PJE)
J. LAVALLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
Ako K. Burrell
19070
Oneida County Correctional Facility
6075 Judd Road
Oriskany, New York 13424
Plaintiff pro se
NYS Office of the Attorney General 	CHI-HSIN E. ENGELHART, ESQ.
State Capitol 	Assistant Attorney General
Albany, New York 12224
Attorney for defendants
PAUL J. EVANGELISTA
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ako K. Burrell moves this Court, pursuant to Rules 34(b) and 37(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order compelling Defendants to produce
documents previously requested for inspection and copying. See Dkt. No. 117.
Defendants oppose the motion. See Dkt. No. 144. For the reasons discussed below,
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
I. 	FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE Document 146 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 6

2
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this matter. Plaintiff’s
first motion to compel production in response to his July 23, 2024, demand was filed on
October 6, 2025. See Dkt. No. 114. Plaintiff’s motion is generally based on Defendant’s
failure to respond to Plaintiff’s demands. See generally Dkt. No. 114. On the same day,
the Court set a conference to discuss Plaintiff’s motion. See Dkt. Nos. 113, 115. Before
the scheduled hearing, in response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants filed a letter
response stating that the demands Plaintiff referenced in his motion were “co-mingled
with discovery demands that Plaintiff served on other litigation brought by Plaintiff and
being handled by [the Office of the Attorney General].” Dkt. No. 116 at 1. As relevant
here, attached to Defendants’ response is a copy of Defendants’ response to the
Plaintiff’s demand to produce documents, which was the subject of Plaintiff’s first motion
to compel. See Dkt. No. 116-2.
Before the October 17, 2025, conference, Plaintiff filed a second motion to
compel, based on the sufficiency of Defendants’ response to the July 23, 2024,
demands. See Dkt. No. 117. 	At the October 17, 2025, conference, the Court
addressed the earlier motion to compel, dkt. no. 114, deemed it moot, and denied it
based on Defendants’ responses which are attached as Exhibit 2 to their response to
Plaintiff’s first motion to compel. See Dkt. No. 116-2. The pending discovery issues
were also discussed and narrowed. See Text Minute Entry dated Oct. 17, 2025. The
Court reserved on the pending motion to compel, dkt. no. 117, pending further review
and response by Defendants to the narrowed discovery issues discussed during the
conference. See id. Following the conference, Defendants served Plaintiff with
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE Document 146 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 6

3
supplemental disclosures on November 5, 2025, November 14, 2025, and March 4,
2025. See Dkt. No. 144 at 1 (Attorney Declaration of Chi-Hsin Esther Engelhart, Esq.).
The Court held a status conference on March 11, 2026. See Text Min. Entry
dated Mar. 11, 2026. The parties discussed outstanding discovery issues, and the
Court ordered the production of documents for in camera review. See id. A follow-up
conference was scheduled and took place on April 1, 2026. See id. Despite three
conferences – October 17, 2025; March 11, 2025; April 1, 2026 – , and five Court-
ordered status reports – dkt. nos. 118, 121, 129, 135, 138 – the discovery issues raised
in the Plaintiff’s motion to compel remained unresolved. The Court ordered a response
to Plaintiff's motion, and on April 15, 2026, Defendants filed their response. See Dkt. No.
144. Generally, Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion, contending that they have
satisfied their discovery obligations. See id. Defendants further claim that Plaintiff’s
RFPs 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 seek documents not within Defendants’ control. See id. at 5.
Finally, they attest that Plaintiff’s RFPs are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
unnecessarily vague. See id.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“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
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE Document 146 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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)).
“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)). When a party fails to participate in or
otherwise cooperate with discovery, the opposing party may seek an order compelling
discovery. See FED. R. CIV . P. 37.
B. 	Defendants Have Complied With Their Discovery Obligations
During this litigation, in response to the Plaintiff’s demand, Defendants provided
Plaintiff:
[M]ental health treatment records for the entire month of March of 2022, as
well as Plaintiff’s medication records spanning over a year on November 5,
2025, see Engelhart Decl. Ex. D; the REMS spreadsheet for Plaintiff on
November 14, 2025; see Engelhart Decl. Ex. E; as well as logbook pages
and several policies in the CNYPC manual on March 4, 2026, see Engelhart
Decl. Ex. F. During a conference on March 11, 2026, and a subsequent
status report on March 23, 2026, Defendants confirmed that there were no
outpatient 	incident 	forms, 	RCTP 	monitoring 	sheets, 	or 	other 	notes,
recordings, or transcripts outside of the treatment records previously
provided. See Engelhart Decl. Ex. G.
Dkt. No. 144 at 6, 7. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s RFPs, dkt. no. 144-2, and all of
the Defendants’ responses and supplemental responses, dkt. nos. 144-3, 144-4, 144-5,
144-6, 144-7, and status reports, dkt. Nos. 118 , 121, 129, 135, 138, and has conducted
an in camera review of the documents provided to the Court. See Dkt. No. 138 at 1.
The Court has also credited the April 14, 2026, declaration of Alexander Shapiro, Esq.,
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE Document 146 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Associate Counsel with the New York State Office of Mental Health. See Dkt. No. 144-
9. It is clear to the Court on the totality of the record before it, that Defendants have
satisfied their discovery obligations in this litigation. As Attorney Shapiro declares, “A
diligent search of OMH records revealed no additional records other than those
contained in Plaintiff’s clinical file that was previously produced.” Id. at 3.
Additionally, for the reasons set forth in Defendants’ response, the Court agrees
that Plaintiff’s demands are “overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily
vague.” See Dkt. No. 144 at 5, 6. Further, they appear, to a significant extent, to be
outside of the parties' custody and control in this litigation. See Dkt. No. 144-9 at 2, ¶4.
Despite these objections, pursuant to the Court’s instruction, Defendants supplemented
their responses on multiple occasions. See Dkt. No. 144 at 6.
As to the timeliness of Defendants' response to Plaintiff’s RFPs, the Court has
broad discretion over discovery matters, including to excuse the timeliness of the
response for good cause. See Osdoby v. Handi-Foil Corp., No. 22-CV-4199 (NG)(JMW),
2023 WL 3306967, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2023). The Court excuses Defendants’ initial
delay in responding to Plaintiff’s July 23, 2024, RFPs. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s
demands were “co-mingled with discovery demands that Plaintiff served on other
litigation brought by Plaintiff and being handled by [the Office of the Attorney General].”
Dkt. No. 116 at 1. Further, the delay here is minimal, and, as the Attorney General
asserts, was “pursuant to an extension of discovery due to the transition between
assigned counsel, and because Defendants have produced the requested documents
such that Plaintiff is not prejudiced, good cause exists to excuse the delay in
Defendants’ response.” Dkt. No. 144 at 6.
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE Document 146 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 6

6
III. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No 117) is DENIED,
and it is further
ORDERED, that discovery is now closed, and it is further
ORDERED, that dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed on or before June 1,
2026, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk provide Plaintiff with copies of the unpublished
decisions cited herein in accordance with Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009)
(per curium).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE Document 146 Filed 04/20/26 Page 6 of 6