Bradshaw v. Marshall et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
JAY BRADSHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 9:21-CV-826
MATTHEW WELCH, GABRIEL ORBEGOZO, 	(ECC/PJE)
NATHAN LOCKE, C.O. RUSSELL, CPT. GRAVLIN,
DONALD UHLER, ERIC MARSHALL, C.O.
KILCOYNE, C.O. MITCHELL, C.O. McCARGAR, CPT.
VESNESKE, C.O. GORDON, C.O. DUMAS,
C.O. OLSEN, and REGINALD BISHOP,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
Jay Bradshaw
08-A-2654
Sing Sing Correctional Facility
354 Hunter Street
Ossining, New York 10562
Plaintiff pro se
New York State Attorney General 	LELA M. GRAY, ESQ.
The Capitol 	Assistant Attorney General
Albany, New York 12224
Attorney for defendants
PAUL J. EVANGELISTA
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s second motion to compel the production of
documents in response to his eighth request for production. See Dkt. No. 202.
Defendants opposed the motion. See Dkt. No. 204. Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 220 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 7

2
otherwise fails to establish any deficiencies in the defendant’s response to his eighth
request for production; therefore, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
I. Background
Familiarity with the facts and issues underlying this action is presumed; thus, the
Court will repeat the relevant facts herein only as necessary to review the instant
motion. 	This action involves a use-of-force incident that occurred on July 12, 2021, at
Upstate Correctional Facility. See Dkt. No. 119 (“Second Amended Complaint”). A
discovery conference was held on December 20, 2024, and the Court set a discovery
deadline of February 10, 2025. See Dkt. No. 193. On January 2, 2025, defense
counsel received plaintiff’s eighth request for document production, dated December 22,
2024. See Dkt. No. 204 at ¶6. Defendants’ responses and objections to plaintiff’s eighth
request for document production were served on January 28, 2025. See id. at ¶ 7 . No
further communication was had between plaintiff and defendants regarding plaintiff’s
eighth request for production of documents. See id. at ¶ 12.
Defendants requested and were granted a thirty-day extension of discovery
deadlines to give plaintiff more time to respond to defendants’ discovery demands. See
Dkt. Nos. 197, 198. Discovery deadlines in this matter were extended to March 11,
2025. See Dkt. No. 198. Plaintiff filed this second motion to compel on April 14, 2025.
See Dkt. No. 202. In his eighth request for production, plaintiff seeks copies of all
videos related to the superintendent’s hearing. See Dkt. No. 202 at 3. Additionally,
plaintiff requests copies of the planning grid for the months of April through July 2021 for
defendants Locke, Gordon, Marshall, and Orbegozo. See id. Plaintiff also seeks the
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 220 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 7

3
production of Unit Activity Logs for Upstate Building 101 for the same months in 2021.
See id. 	Defendants object to providing copies of the security videos, citing concerns
about unreasonable security risks that may arise from their disclosure. See Dkt. No.
202 at 7. Defendants further claim that all videos from the incidents on July 12, 2021,
were shared with plaintiff during a controlled review of the OSI file on September 11,
2023. Id. 	Defendants next contend that there exists legitimate objection to plaintiff’s
demands for copies of the planning grid relevant to the periods in question. They assert
that the allegations plaintiff makes specifically relate to four use-of-force incidents that
took place on July 12, 2021, the corresponding planning grids for which they already
provided to plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 202 at 8. Defendants maintain that producing security
planning grids beyond that date would not yield relevant information, and such request
is unduly burdensome, overbroad, irrelevant, and disproportionate to plaintiff’s needs.
Defendants allege their response to plaintiff’s request for building 11 Unit activity
logs was adequate. They contend plaintiff was not housed in building 11 on the day of
the alleged incidents, and, further, that there is no evidence demonstrating defendants’
control over their assignments within the DOCCS facility at that time. See Dkt. No. 204-
3 at 9. Consequently, defendants conclude plaintiff’s request is unduly burdensome,
overbroad, not relevant, not proportionate to the needs of the case, and creates an
unreasonable security risk. 	See id. 	Defendants contend that they have already
produced to plaintiff the unit activity logs for July 12, 2021, for building 10, where they
claim plaintiff was housed. To the extent his request seeks logs for dates other than the
1 In his eighth demand for production plaintiff seeks the “upstate, 11 Building logs.” Defendants respond
the plaintiff was not in building 11, rather building 10. In his motion to compel, plaintiff claims a demand
for building 10 logs. The Court will consider the demand and the response to the demand as it relates to
logs of building 10. See Dkt. No. 202 at 3, 8; Dkt. No. 204-1.
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 220 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 7

4
day of the incidents, defendants assert that they are not relevant, unduly burdensome,
overbroad, and not proportionate to the needs of the case. See id.
II. 	Legal standards
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
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 Rule 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)2 (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. This Court’s Local Rules require that any
motion to compel discovery be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the deadline
for completing discovery or as otherwise extended by the Court. See Dkt. No. 105 at 6
n.6; N.D.N.Y. L.R. 16.2, 37.1(h).
2 The Court has provided plaintiff with copies of unpublished cases cited herein.
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 220 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 7

5
A plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse failure to abide by the District 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) (citing McNeil v.
U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by
prisoners who do not have access to counsel be liberally construed . . . we have never
suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to
excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”); see also Brunson v.
Jonathan, 677 F. Supp. 2d 640, 642 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying as untimely a pro se
plaintiff’s motion to compel filed two and a half months late.).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff’s second motion to compel is plainly untimely. Discovery deadlines were
extended until March 11, 2025, to give the plaintiff more time to respond to defendants’
discovery demands. See Dkt. No. 198. Aa noted, the Court’s Mandatory Pretrial
Discovery and Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 105, at 6 n.6, and Local Rules 16.2 and
37.1(h), require plaintiff to file any motion to compel discovery within fourteen days
following the discovery deadline, which was on or before March 25, 2025. Plaintiff’s
second motion to compel was filed on April 14, 2025. See Dkt. No. 202. Plaintiff proffers
no justification or cause for his late filing.
In addition to the unexcused procedural violations noted above, the Court finds
that defendants have appropriately responded to plaintiff’s demands. Even assuming,
arguendo, that plaintiff’s motion was timely filed, the Court would still deny plaintiff’s
motion on the merits. Specifically, the Court agrees with defendants that providing
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 220 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 7

6
copies of the security videos plaintiff requests poses unreasonable security risks. See
Cisse v. Mitchell, 22-CV-6071FPG, 2024 WL 2794251, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 31, 2024)
(citing Henry v. Liberty, 9:15-CV-1108, 2017 WL 633409, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2017)
(“mindful of the legitimate concerns of DOCCS and the facility, . . . the [c]ourt agrees
that providing [p]laintiff with an opportunity to review the [r]eport, but not possess it, is
the appropriate course which adequately protects all the parties’ interests”)). Further,
the Court observes that plaintiff has been given an opportunity to review all the relevant
videos during a controlled review of the OSI file that occurred on September 11, 2023.
See Dkt. No. 202 at 7; Dkt. No. 179-2 at ¶ 21 (Skiff Decl.) Defendants have confirmed
that DOCCS indicated it had no other or further videos depicting any of the incidents
involving the plaintiff on July 12, 2021. See Dkt. No. 144.
Finally, Court agrees with defendants that their response and objections to
plaintiff’s demand for copies of the planning grid for the entire months of April 2021 to
July 2021 for Locke, Gordon, Marshall, and Orbegozo, and their response to plaintiff’s
demand for Upstate Building 11 Unit Activity logs for the same period of time are not
relevant, other than as to the planning grids or building logs for July 12, 2021, which
have already been produced. See Dkt. No. 202 at 8; Dkt. No. 204-3 at 9. As defendants
highlight, there is no evidence that any defendant had any involvement in determining
their post assignments for July 12, 2021, or any other day. Therefore, plaintiff’s
requested productions will not lead to relevant information and are overbroad and not
proportionate to the plaintiff’s needs to prosecute his case. That portion of plaintiff’s
demands that the Court finds are even marginally relevant and proportionate to the
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 220 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 7

7
plaintiff’s claims, namely, the planning grid and the building logs for July 11, 2021, have
already been produced.
IV. 	Conclusion
WHEREFORE, For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff’s Second Motion to
Compel, Dkt. No. 202, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 9:21-cv-00826-ECC-PJE Document 220 Filed 01/06/26 Page 7 of 7