# Hill v. County of Niagara

> District Court, W.D. New York · March 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10365900

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. New York
- **Decided:** March 3, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10365900

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________

MICHAEL HILL and KAREN PITTMAN,
DECISION & ORDER and
Plaintiffs, AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

v. 18-CV-6022EAW

JAMES PAYNE, et al.,

Defendants.
_______________________________________

Plaintiffs Michael Hill and Karen Pittman, acting pro se, filed a complaint
asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants James Payne, S. LaTona, C. Wilson,
Kevin Payne, and James R. Vourtour, employees of the Niagara County Sherriff’s Office
(collectively, “County defendants”), and Thomas Loughren1, Commissioner of the New York
State Commission of Correction. (Docket ## 16, 22). Plaintiffs’ claims stem from Hill’s pretrial
detention at the Niagara County Jail. (Id.). Specifically, plaintiffs assert the following claims:
(1) Defendants LaTona, Wilson, and Kevin Payne denied Hill his right to
procedural due process in connection with a disciplinary hearing (Docket
## 15 at 16-20; 16 at ¶¶ 33-43; 22 at 9-11);

(2) Defendants Kevin Payne, Vourtour, and Loughren improperly denied Hill
and Pittman permission to marry (Docket ## 15 at 20-21; 16 at ¶¶ 44-52;
22 at 11-12);

(3) Defendant Kevin Payne improperly denied Hill contact visits (Docket
## 15 at 21-23; 16 at ¶¶ 53-57; 22 at 13-15);

(4) Defendants James Payne and LaTona subjected Hill to an unreasonable
and retaliatory strip search (Docket ## 15 at 23-26; 16 at ¶¶ 58-66; 22 at
15-18);

1 In his answer, defendant Loughren affirms that his name is misspelled in the complaint. (Docket # 28 at
1 n.1).
(5) Defendants LaTona and James Payne subjected Hill to excessive force
(Docket ## 15 at 28-29; 16 at ¶¶ 67-73; 22 at 19); and,

(6) Defendants Kevin Payne and Vourtour denied Hill the right to practice his
religion (Docket ## 15 at 29; 16 at ¶¶ 74-78; 22 at 19-22).

The following motions are currently pending before this Court: (1) plaintiffs’
motion for appointment of an expert (Docket # 126); (2) plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and an
order to compel (Docket # 141); (3) County defendants’ cross-motion for a special master to
supervise, and an extension of time to complete, plaintiffs’ depositions (Docket # 145);
(4) plaintiffs’ motion in limine (Docket # 143); (5) County defendants’ motion for an extension
of time to file dispositive motions (Docket # 150); and, (6) plaintiffs’ motion for a special master
to review County defendants’ discovery responses (Docket # 152).2 The Court grants County
defendants’ motions to extend the deadlines to complete discovery and file dispositive motions;
all other pending motions are denied, with the exception of plaintiffs’ requests for an order to
compel, which are granted in part and denied in part. The numerous specific discovery disputes
raised in the various pending motions are addressed below.

DECISION & ORDER
I. Motion for Appointment of Expert
Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint an expert “to investigate their claims of mental
and emotional distress from extreme isolation, [defendants’] infring[ement] upon their rights to
marriage, as well as the actual procedures followed when punishing an inmate, and the affects

2 The Court has repeatedly warned that documents submitted on behalf of both plaintiffs must be signed by
Pittman and Hill. (Docket ## 12 at 3; 15 at 3 n.4; 110 at 6; 119 at 2 n.2). Several of the filings currently before the
Court were not signed by either Pittman or Hill. (See, e.g., Docket ## 141 at 2, 11, 15 (unsigned notice of motion,
affirmation, and certificate of service); 143 at 30-31). This Court cautions that any additional filings that have not
been signed may be stricken without consideration of their merits.
[sic] of that punishment.” (Docket # 126 at 1). County defendants oppose the motion,
maintaining that appointment of such an expert would serve the sole purpose of assisting
plaintiffs with discovery and advancing plaintiffs’ “partisan position rather than serv[ing] the
purpose of having a neutral expert appointed to . . . assist the Court with complex issues.”

(Docket # 129-1 at 6). Further, County defendants argue that they should not “potentially be
exposed to bearing the cost of the indigent [p]laintiffs’ expert where Mr. Hill is in the best
position to testify himself as to his state of mind at the time of the incarceration at issue.” (Id. at
7). In reply, plaintiffs contend that the expert would provide neutral evidence because neither
the Court nor the parties have an idea “of what information may be generated and produced and
how it may be relevant to both sides.” (Docket # 137 at 7). They further maintain that they do
not have the expertise to diagnose any psychological injuries or conditions that may have
resulted from County defendants’ conduct. (Id. at 4-5).
Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows the Court, on its own motion or
on motion of another party, to appoint an expert witness. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Pabon v. Goord,

2001 WL 856601, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The Court has broad discretion to determine whether to
appoint an expert witness. Pabon v. Goord, 2001 WL 856601 at *1. In deciding whether to
appoint an expert witness, the Court should consider “such factors as the complexity of the
matters to be determined and the Court’s need for a neutral, expert view.” Benitez v. Mailloux,
2007 WL 836873, *1 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quotations omitted).
The appointment of an expert witness pursuant to Rule 706 is not intended to aid
litigants, but rather “to aid the Court, through the services of an impartial expert, in its
assessment of technical issues.” Id.; see also Reynolds v. Goord, 2000 WL 825690, *2
(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“[t]he most important factor in favor of appointing an expert is that the case
involves a complex or esoteric subject beyond the trier-of-fact’s ability to adequately understand
without expert assistance”) (quoting 29 C. Wright & V. Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 6304 (1997)). The Court should “bear in mind the substantial expense that defendants may
have to bear if the [c]ourt appoints an expert in a case where . . . one of the parties is indigent.”

Muhammad v. Wright, 2009 WL 3246731, *1 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). Considering the substantial
costs that may result, the Court’s appointment of expert witnesses should be used sparingly. Id.
(citing Benitez v. Mailloux, 2007 WL 836873 at *2). “The enlistment of court-appointed expert
assistance under Rule 706 is not commonplace,” and courts appoint experts under Rule 706
“relatively infrequent[ly].” In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 830 F. Supp. 686, 693
(E.D.N.Y. 1993). “[M]ost judges view the appointment of an expert as an extraordinary activity
that is appropriate only in rare instances.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). In addition,
“the mere fact that [a] [p]laintiff has been permitted to proceed . . . in forma pauperis entitles
him only to the right to proceed without [the] prepayment of filing fees and the cost of service.”
Benitez, 2007 WL 836873 at *1. Simply stated, in forma pauperis status “does not authorize

payment or advancement of discovery expenses by the court.” Boyd v. Deasis, 2020 WL
3566636, *2 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (quotations and brackets omitted); Graves v. Corr. Med. Serv.,
2015 WL 1823456, *9 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (“the plain language of section 1915 does not provide
for the appointment of expert witnesses to aid an indigent litigant”) (quotations and brackets
omitted), aff’d, 667 F. App’x 18 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order).
The issues in this case do not appear esoteric or medically complex, and plaintiffs
themselves will be able to testify about any emotional distress and related symptoms they
experienced following or resulting from defendants’ conduct.3 Relatedly, plaintiffs are capable

3 Plaintiffs’ papers mention the need to investigate – and show the jury – the degree of suffering Hill
endured as a result of allegedly false information provided by the confidential informant(s). (See Docket # 126 at
of utilizing available discovery tools to obtain information about the jail’s policies and
procedures, as well as the manner in which County defendants interpreted them (see Docket
# 137 at 7). For these reasons, the Court does not find that appointment of an expert witness is
necessary at this time.4 Should the Court later determine that appointment would be appropriate,
it may do so at that time. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is denied without prejudice.5 See

DeJesus v. Malloy, 2020 WL 5554518, *2 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (denying appointment of medical
expert witness because alleged injuries from pat-frisk were “discrete” and not “medically
complex”); Dowdell v. City of Rochester, 2013 WL 5504145, *2-3 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying
appointment of psychiatric expert witness where plaintiff allegedly sustained psychological
injuries during arrest).

2-3). Of course, the critical inquiry is not whether the informant(s) provided false information; rather, the relevant
questions are whether defendants – considering the information known to them at the time – used excessive force
and denied Hill due process in connection with his disciplinary proceedings. See, e.g., Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576
U.S. 389, 396-97 (2015) (“[to prove excessive force,] a pretrial detainee must show . . . that the force purposely or
knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable[;] . . . objective reasonableness turns on the facts and
circumstances of each particular case[;] [a] court must make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable
officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight[;] [a] court
must also account for the legitimate interests that stem from [the government’s] need to manage the facility in which
the individual is detained, appropriately deferring to policies and practices that in th[e] judgment of jail officials are
needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security[;] [c]onsiderations such as the
following may bear on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the force used: the relationship between the need
for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff’s injury; any effort made by the officer
to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably
perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting”) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).

4 To the extent plaintiffs request an evidentiary hearing on this motion (Docket # 137 at 4), that request is
likewise denied as unnecessary.

5 To the extent that plaintiffs’ motion may be interpreted as seeking authorization for a medical
examination of Hill pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such request is also denied. Rule
35 generally governs requests made by one party to require another party to submit to a medical examination. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a); see Smith v. Carroll, 602 F. Supp. 2d 521, 526 (D. Del. 2009) (“Rule 35, however, does not
vest the court with authority to appoint an expert to examine a party [even an indigent inmate] wishing an
examination of himself”). Although plaintiff has the right to hire his own expert, “no civil litigant, even an indigent
one, has [the] legal right to [a medical examination at taxpayer expense].” Smith v. Carroll, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 526;
accord Brown v. United States, 74 F. App’x 611, 614 (7th Cir. 2003) (court properly denied indigent inmate’s
request to compel government to bear cost of hiring expert to testify on his behalf), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1132
(2004).
II. Motions Related to Hill’s Deposition
Defendants attempted to depose Hill on June 9, 2022, but various disputes arose
during the course of the examination that caused counsel to suspend the deposition. (See Docket
# 145-2). The aborted deposition is the subject of several filings, including plaintiffs’ motion to
compel and for sanctions6 (Docket # 141) and County defendants’ cross-motion for a special

master to supervise plaintiffs’ depositions (Docket # 145).
Before appointing a special master, “the court must consider the fairness of
imposing the likely expenses on the parties and must protect against unreasonable expense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a). Here, plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis (Docket # 15), and
County defendants have not stated that they are willing to pay the full expenses for a special
master. Moreover, the parties should not need oversight to complete the remaining depositions,
and the Court thus denies County defendants’ cross-motion for the appointment of a special
master to supervise depositions.
As counsel for defendants correctly advised Hill during his deposition, relevancy

may be a basis for objecting to a question but not for refusing to answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(c)(2) (“[a]n objection at the time of the examination . . . must be noted on the record, but the
examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection”). Specifically, if a
deponent believes that a question seeks irrelevant or inadmissible testimony, he or she should

6 Plaintiffs’ motion papers are not entirely clear as to the relief they seek. Plaintiffs suggest that counsel
for defendants should be sanctioned for their conduct at the deposition and for refusing to confer about discovery
disputes. (Docket # 141 at 10). They also raise issues about facts and theories of the case, but those are issues that
do not warrant judicial intervention. (Docket # 148 at 4). County defendants interpret plaintiffs’ papers to raise
discovery disputes over documents and information mostly concerning the confidential informant(s). (Docket
# 145-4 at 8-10). To the extent plaintiffs raise discovery disputes in their initial motion papers, or in reply that relate
to disputes raised in other pending motions, the Court addresses those issues infra.
concisely note the objection and answer the question.7 See id. For example, in response to
questions concerning Hill’s prior convictions, the names of each facility in which Hill was
incarcerated, and the circumstances of his disciplinary infractions or convictions relating to
contraband, Hill should have objected to any questions he believed were irrelevant and

proceeded to answer the question. See, e.g., Gould Invs., L.P. v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Trieste &
Venice, 133 F.R.D. 103, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (“all objections made at the time of the
examination shall be noted and that evidence objected to shall be taken subject to objections. . . .
[i]t is not the prerogative of counsel [or a pro se plaintiff], but of the court, to rule on
objections”) (internal quotation omitted); Maldonado v. Srour, 2015 WL 5098617, *2 (E.D.N.Y.
2015) (rejecting argument that plaintiff attempted to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent
by asking questions about personal information not connected to the claims because “[l]ack of
relevancy is not a proper ground for instructing a witness not to answer deposition questions”)
(internal quotations and citation omitted). Of course, the Court expects defense counsel to ask
only questions which counsel in good faith believes are relevant.8

Few exceptions exist to the general rule requiring a deponent to answer the
questions asked at a deposition, notwithstanding an interposed objection. For example, a
deponent may decline to answer questions that seek privileged information as to which the
deponent plans to seek a protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (“[a] person may instruct a
deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation
ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3)”). In his deposition, Hill raised

7 A deposition is not the proper setting in which to argue about discovery disputes, such as defendants’
alleged failure to produce documents related to the subject matter of the questions. (See, e.g., Docket ## 148 at 3, 4;
145-2 at 24, 27-29). Regardless of whether certain documents have been produced, a deponent must answer the
questions to the best of his or her ability.

8 The relevance of questions about Hill’s daughter and granddaughter, unlike other lines of inquiry, is not
readily apparent.
privilege concerns in response to questions about a conversation he apparently had with a mental
health counselor. (Docket # 145-2 at 32-33). To the extent defendants wish to pursue this line of
questioning, they should articulate the questions on the record, and Hill may determine whether
to object and refuse to answer on the grounds of psychotherapist-patient privilege. “Thereafter,

the parties may resolve the dispute in one of two ways. First, the deponent may seek a protective
order pursuant to Rules 26(c) and 30(d).9 Alternatively, the party taking the deposition may
move pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B) to compel the testimony it seeks.” Luc Vets Diamant v.
Akush, 2006 WL 258293, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
The Court denies plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions, attorneys’ fees, an evidentiary
hearing, and an order describing the bounds of depositions10 and County defendants’
cross-motion for a special master to supervise plaintiffs’ depositions. This Court expects the
parties and counsel to adhere to the applicable rules governing depositions outlined above, as
well as general rules of civility. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2) (“[t]he court may impose an appropriate sanction – including the

9 “[I]t is well-established in this Circuit that ‘the party invoking a privilege bears the burden of establishing
its applicability to the case at hand.’” Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 2005 WL 1925656, *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
(quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated Mar. 19, 2002 & Aug. 2, 2002, 318 F.3d 379, 384 (2d Cir. 2003)). In
order for the psychotherapist privilege to apply, the party seeking its protection must establish that the
communications: (1) occurred between the individual and a licensed medical professional; (2) were made in the
course of diagnosis or treatment; and (3) were made with the expectation that they would be kept confidential. See
Doe v. Sarah Lawrence Coll., 2021 WL 197132, *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (“[t]he psychotherapist-patient privilege only
applies to (1) confidential communications, (2) between a licensed mental health professional and his or her patients,
(3) in the course of diagnosis or treatment”) (emphasis omitted). Hill thus will need to provide information
sufficient to establish each element of the psychotherapist-privilege – including identification of the parties to the
communication, information identifying the subject of the communication, and the basis for Hill’s expectation of
privacy – to permit the Court to evaluate whether the communication was confidential and whether it was made in
the course of diagnosis and treatment.

10 Any request for sanctions based on defendants’ failure to confer at the deposition about discovery
disputes (see Docket ## 143 at 30; 148 at 2-3) is denied. Although the Court denied plaintiffs’ previous motions on
the grounds that the parties had not conferred, it did not order that the required conferral take place during Hill’s
deposition.
reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party – on a person who impedes,
delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent”).
County defendants’ cross-motion to extend the deadline to complete depositions
is granted, and the parties are directed to notify the Court in writing by March 27, 2023, to

advise of the arrangements for the party depositions, including the date, time, location, and
length of the examination.

III. Motion in Limine
Plaintiffs seek an order precluding the admission at trial of evidence relating to
several issues. (Docket # 143 at 1-12). They also seek an order precluding or restricting
cumulative witnesses and permitting plaintiffs to treat defendants and “all defense witnesses” as
hostile witnesses. (Id. at 11-13). Defendants oppose this motion as both procedurally premature
and substantively meritless. (Docket # 149-7).
County defendants are correct that plaintiffs’ in limine motion is premature.

Generally, “[i]n limine motions deal with evidentiary matters and are not to be filed until the eve
of trial,” Jones v. Harris, 665 F. Supp. 2d 384, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), so that the trial court may
resolve admissibility challenges, Cannistraci v. Kirsopp, 2012 WL 2089687, *2 (N.D.N.Y.
2012) (“[a] court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is
clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds[;] . . . [c]ourts considering a motion in limine may
reserve decision until trial so that the motion is placed in the appropriate factual context”). See
also Sahiti v. Tarentum, Ltd., 2021 WL 3115813, *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (concluding that pending
motions in limine were premature, even at summary judgment stage), reconsideration denied,
2022 WL 657223 (2022).
Likewise, arguments about treatment of witnesses as hostile or exclusion of them
as cumulative are best addressed during trial. See Ali v. Connick, 2016 WL 3002403, *4
(E.D.N.Y. 2016) (“the court cannot predict when [d]efendants’ evidence will become cumulative
because the court does not know what evidence [d]efendants will present[;] [s]hould [d]efendants

cross the line at trial, [p]laintiff should renew his challenge then”); Harewood v. Braithwaite,
2013 WL 5366391, *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (reserving on motion to treat witness as hostile “until
such time the witness evinces hostility, bias, or recalcitrance during her testimony”). Therefore,
the Court denies plaintiffs’ motion in limine without prejudice.11

IV. Discovery-Related Issues
Plaintiffs’ pending motions papers are replete with challenges to many of County
defendants’ responses to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (See, e.g., Docket ## 141 at 7, 11; 148 at
4-7; 143 at 13-30; 152 at 6-25). Because plaintiffs have attempted to confer about the disputes,12
the Court addresses those disputes below.

A. Disputes Previously Addressed in this Court’s
March 8, 2022 Decision and Order (the “March 8 Order”)

In June and July 2021, Hill filed motions challenging the adequacy of the majority
of defendants’ discovery responses and seeking sanctions. (Docket ## 86, 88). Because the

11 Plaintiffs’ motion in limine (Docket # 143 at 13-30) also includes arguments more accurately viewed as
requests for a court order to compel. The Court addresses those disputes below.

12 Both sides apparently anticipated discussing discovery disputes on the day of Hill’s scheduled
deposition. (See Docket ## 138 at 2 (indicating to the Court that defendants “hop[ed] to use this date . . . as an
opportunity to confer”); 141 at 6 (arguing that the parties stipulated “that the deposition would be utilized to confer
on discovery”)). Although the record is unclear as to whether a conferral in fact occurred, it is apparent that Hill
attempted to confer that day. (See Docket ## 145-2 at 50-51 (Hill stating that he wanted to discuss discovery issues
on the record and defendants responding that Hill would have to pay the stenographer for transcribing that
discussion); 152 at 18 (plaintiffs asserting that defendants refused to confer off the record); 158 at ¶ 33 (County
defendants claiming that conferral occurred after the deposition was suspended)).
record did not establish that the parties had meaningfully conferred prior to filing those motions,
the Court denied the motions and instructed Hill to confer with counsel before seeking relief.
(Docket # 119 at 9-10). The Court nonetheless addressed certain of the disputes in its March 8
Order in an effort to assist the parties with their conferral process. (Id. at 10-17). Plaintiffs’

current motions contend that County defendants’ responses to some of those discovery disputes
remain insufficient.13
1. Kevin Payne’s Responses to Requests for Admissions
Plaintiffs again dispute the adequacy of defendant Kevin Payne’s responses to
three of plaintiffs’ requests for admissions and seek associated sanctions. (Compare Docket # 88
at 7-9 with Docket # 143 at 15-18). In its March 8 Order, the Court stated that Requests Nos. 5
and 6 were unduly confusing and complex and that plaintiffs’ challenge to Payne’s response to
Request No. 8 was “nothing more than [a] substantive factual dispute[]” that “does not justify
judicial intervention or relief.” (See Docket # 119 at 16). On this record, plaintiffs’ request for
additional responses, attorneys’ fees, or sanctions is denied.

2. First Set of Discovery Demands
This Court also previously addressed three requests that plaintiffs raise in the
pending motions – specifically Requests Nos. 5, 10, and 11 contained in plaintiffs’ First Set of
Discovery Demands – as to which the Court in its March 8 Order County urged defendants to
provide supplemental information or responses. (Docket # 119 at 13-14). Requests Nos. 5 and
1114 seek all grievances filed by plaintiffs concerning their right to marry and Hill’s tier hearing

13 Because the Court’s discussion in its March 8 Order was offered as guidance, the Court denies plaintiffs’
requests for sanctions on the grounds that County defendants failed to comply or deliberately disregarded the Order.
(See, e.g., Docket # 152 at 16-17).

14 Request No. 11 seeks Hill’s “Tier Hearing appeals, answering decisions or any other formal response.”
(Docket # 100-2 at 3). The Court’s resolution of this dispute applies equally to the dispute about plaintiffs’
Conferral Demands Nos. 21 and 22, which seek “[p]laintiffs’ disciplinary appeals challenging the disciplinary
appeals. (See Docket # 100-2 at 5). County defendants originally responded by stating that they
had provided all responsive documents and referred plaintiffs to their Rule 26(a)(1) initial and
supplemental disclosures. (Docket # 100-3 at 5, 7). Plaintiffs disputed that contention, and the
Court in its March 8 Order advised County defendants to confer with plaintiffs about the specific

documents allegedly not produced and, if the documents had been produced, to identify where
within the production the documents were located or, if they had not been produced, to produce
them or to confirm in writing that the documents were not in their possession, custody, or
control. (Docket # 119 at 13).
County defendants supplemented their responses by simply confirming that they
had diligently searched for responsive documents and did not have any additional documents.
(Docket # 131 at 5, 7). Plaintiffs maintain that that County defendants must have destroyed,
misplaced, or lost responsive documents – which were required by policy to exist – and request
that the Court compel them to provide the documents or impose sanctions. (Docket ## 143 at
27-29; 152 at 7, 9, 10, 25 (seeking a special master to determine the veracity of County

defendants’ contention that they do not have copies of certain documents)).
County defendants’ supplemental responses do not comport with the Court’s
previous guidance. They do not make clear, first, whether County defendants conferred with
plaintiffs about the allegedly missing documents15 and, second, whether County defendants
contend that such documents were previously produced or are not in their possession, custody, or

hearing denial of witnesses and documents rendered by Christopher Wilson” and “Kevin Payne’s disciplinary appeal
decision and all documents attached thereto.” (Docket # 140 at 14-15).

15 The alleged missing documents include plaintiffs’ initial grievance and response about the right to marry
– as opposed to grievance documents about the failure to respond to such grievance. (Docket # 152 at 7; see also
Docket # 86 at 16-17). They also include copies of plaintiffs’ disciplinary appeals, the chief jail administrator’s
decisions, and the documents attached to them, such as Hill’s document and witness requests. (See Docket # 152 at
9, 24-25).
control. If the documents were previously produced, County defendants have failed to identify
the particular responsive documents by bates number. County defendants are directed to comply
with the Court’s previous guidance by no later than March 27, 2023.
Plaintiffs’ Request No. 10 seeks “all log book entries, reports, files,

memorandums and communications concerning each complaint/incident mentioned in the
Plaintiffs’ grievances.” (Docket # 100-2 at 3). In his prior motions, Hill narrowed this request to
all “G-block log book entries” for November 7 and 8 and alleged that County defendants had
produced a version of the logbook entries that had been “doctored.” (Docket # 86 at 17-18). The
Court advised the parties to confer over any redactions made to the logbook entries, as well as
the justification for any such redactions, and to provide the Court with unredacted copies.
(Docket # 119 at 14).
In their supplemental responses, County defendants stated that they provided
copies of the Officer Activity Logs for Blocks E, F, and G on November 7 and 8, 2017 but
redacted “the names of inmates in order to preserve their privacy and ensure the security of the

inmates and Niagara County employees.” (Docket # 131 at 7). They did not, however, provide
the Court with copies of the unredacted logbooks and proposed redactions and are directed to do
so by no later than March 27, 2023
Plaintiffs challenge the redactions on the grounds that they should be permitted to
learn names of possible witnesses. (Docket # 152 at 8). County defendants are instructed to
supplement their discovery responses with their justifications for the redactions. If plaintiffs
disagree that the redactions are appropriate, they may move for an order to disclose the
unredacted documents by the deadline of May 31, 2023 for filing motions to compel.
On this record, plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, including adverse inference
instructions, relating to County defendants’ supplemental responses is denied without prejudice
to renewal in the event County defendants do not comply with this Court’s instructions.
3. Photographs of Isolation and Negative Pressure
Cells and Related Requests

According to plaintiffs, after Hill was extracted from his cell on November 7,
2017, he was immediately placed in an isolation cell behind a metal door. (See Docket # 100-3
at 20). Hill was thereafter transferred to a negative pressure cell. (See Docket # 152 at 16).
Plaintiffs’ Demand for Photographs Requests Nos. 2 and 3 request pictures of these cells. This
Court previously acknowledged that “there are no conditions of confinement claims pending in
this action” and thus denied plaintiffs’ demands for photographs of the negative pressure cell.
(Docket # 119 at 11-12). The Court did advise County defendants to provide photographs, or
allow plaintiffs or a designee to take photographs, of the cell in which plaintiff was immediately
housed after his November 7, 2017 extraction. (Docket # 119 at 15).
In their Conferral Demands,16 plaintiffs persist in their requests for photographs
of both cells. (Docket # 140 at 16-17). County defendants have responded by directing plaintiffs
to photographs taken on March 29, 2022, of the negative pressure cell. (Docket # 140 at 16-17).
County defendants appear to have misunderstood the Court’s prior instruction. They were
advised to provide photographs of, or allow plaintiffs to photograph, the cell in which plaintiff

was immediately housed after his extraction – which the Court understands was the isolation
cell, not the negative pressure cell. (Docket # 119 at 15). Because County defendants attempted
to comply with this Court’s prior decision, sanctions are not warranted (see Docket # 152 at 16

16 After the Court issued its March 8 Order, County defendants served supplemental discovery responses.
(Docket ## 131-134). Thereafter, plaintiffs served “Conferral Demands,” to which County defendants responded on
June 7, 2022. (See Docket ## 138, 140).
(arguing that “defendants . . . deliberately refuse[d] to produce” the requested photographs)), but
photographs of the cell into which Hill was immediately placed following the cell extraction
must be provided to plaintiffs by no later than March 27, 2023.
Plaintiffs also seek documents related to negative pressure cells, such as “all

documents authoriz[ing] said cell to be utilized as a[] SHU cell” (Docket # 140 at 17) or any
“memorandum, report, policy or manual defining/describing what is a Negative Pressure Cell
and its purpose” (Docket ## 100-2 at 5; 152 at 14-15). County defendants have stated that they
possess no responsive documents (Docket ## 131 at 11; 140 at 17), a representation that
plaintiffs dispute (Docket # 152 at 15).
As the Court has already observed, no conditions of confinement claims are
before the Court in this action (Docket # 119 at 12);17 thus, plaintiffs have not articulated a basis
for believing that their requests for photographs of, or documents related to, negative pressure
cells are relevant. Plaintiffs’ request for associated sanctions is denied. (See Docket # 152 at
15).

4. Requests Concerning the Confidential Informant(s)
Many of plaintiffs’ challenges relate to County defendants’ responses to demands
about the confidential informant(s) who provided information to Niagara County Jail employees
on or about November 7, 2017, concerning Hill’s alleged possession and/or distribution of
contraband (the “Confidential Informant(s)”).18 (Docket ## 143 at 19-22; 152 at 16-24). Those
requests are discussed below.

17 Despite the absence of such a claim, plaintiffs allege conclusorily that confinement in the cell was cruel
and inhumane. (Docket # 100-3 at 21).

18 The record does not reveal whether there were multiple Confidential Informants. (See Docket # 16-1 at
26 (indicating on a form signed by defendant Kevin Payne on November 27, 2017, that “[i]nformation from multiple
confidential informants ha[d] been received . . . that [Hill was] in possession of dangerous contraband or ha[d] been
in possession of dangerous contraband while incarcerated in the Niagara County Jail). But see Docket # 149-5 at
As the Court observed in its March 8 Order:
[I]nformation as to the informants’ reliability may indeed be
relevant insofar as any defendants seek to justify the type or
amount of force used during the cell extraction, the denial of
contact visits, or the issuance of the misbehavior report based upon
information learned from confidential informants. The parties
should discuss whether and the extent to which information
relating to the confidential informants is relevant to the claims and
defenses asserted in this litigation.

(Docket # 119 at 11).19 Despite that language, County defendants objected to the discovery
requests relating to the Confidential Informant(s) as seeking “materials and/or information that is
confidential and/or privileged” insofar as they request “another inmate’s records which are
deemed confidential based on the interests of prison safety, security, and the need for
governmental secrecy.” (See Docket ## 140 at 4-9; 132). They also objected on the grounds that
the requests seek irrelevant information because Hill was found not guilty of possessing
contraband. (Docket ## 140 at 4-9; 132).
The Court disagrees with and overrules County defendants’ relevance objection.
This Court’s March 8 Order articulated its view, which remains unchanged, that information
concerning the Confidential Informant(s), his or their reliability, and his or their statements about
Hill are generally relevant insofar as defendants considered and relied upon that information in
their interactions with Hill, particularly in determining the manner in which to conduct the cell
extraction and the force to be employed. Indeed, review of the incident reports suggests that

2-5, 23 (though redacted, appearing to refer to a singular Confidential Informant)). Although plaintiffs’ requests
pertained to a named suspected Confidential Informant, defendants have declined to identify the Confidential
Informant(s). In responding to plaintiffs’ discovery requests, County defendants should construe Conferral
Demands Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 and plaintiffs’ Second Set of Discovery Demands Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as seeking
information about all the Confidential Informant(s) (as defined above), rather than the named suspected informant.

19 The Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that information as to the confidential informants’ reliability is
relevant to assess whether probable cause existed for the cell search because the Fourth Amendment’s probable
cause requirement is inapplicable to prison cell searches. (Id.).
information provided by informant(s) contributed to the decision to employ the techniques used
in the extraction.20 Therefore, County defendants’ argument that plaintiffs have failed to meet
their burden to establish relevance (Docket # 145-4 at 6, 10) is rejected.
As to County defendants’ objection that the information sought may jeopardize

prison safety and security, the Court will permit defendants to redact the name(s) and
Department Identification Number(s) (“DIN”) of the Confidential Informant(s). Should County
defendants believe that additional redactions are necessary as to any of the documents defendants
produce concerning the Confidential Informant(s), they must provide the Court with unredacted
copies of the material and provide plaintiffs with redacted copies, along with their reasoning for
the redactions, by no later than March 27, 2023. Having addressed County defendants’
objections, I turn to plaintiffs’ requests.
Conferral Demands Nos. 1 and 8 request production of prior communications by
the Confidential Informant(s) to the Niagara County Jail about misconduct of other inmates at
the jail. The requests also seek documents and reports reflecting any investigations conducted

concerning the accuracy of information provided by the Confidential Informant(s) about Hill or
other inmates. (Docket # 140 at 4, 7). This request is overbroad as drafted. Rather, by March
27, 2023, County defendants are directed to provide documents or reports during the three-year
period preceding Hill’s cell extraction that discuss, analyze, or address the credibility of

20 In assessing an excessive force claim, “a court must judge the reasonableness of the force used from the
perspective and with the knowledge of the defendant officer.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. at 399. Therefore,
requests concerning what the defendants knew or believed at the time they used force are plainly relevant. (See,
e.g., Docket # 149-5 at 2, 3 (stating that defendant James Payne advised officers to use “extreme caution”
considering the possible contraband and CERT officers “donned safety gear for the move”; “[d]ue to the actions of
inmate Hill and the possibility of him trying to locate a weapon, CERT was ordered into his cell to secure him”); id.
at 4 (“[i]t was ordered that CO’s [sic] Staley, Peloquin and LaTona put on their extraction gear as Michael Hill
potentially had a weapon and was incarcerated on felony assault charges”); id. at 23 (“[d]ue to our intelligence . . . ,
his non-compliance, and propensity for violence[,] I exposed him to a one second burst of Oleoresin Capsicum
(OC)[;] . . . Lt. Greenwald [ordered] to secure [Hill] in the Restraint Chair (RC) due to his non-compliance and
potential possession of a dangerous instrument”)).
information provided by the Confidential Informant(s) concerning any inmate misconduct or
confirm in writing that a diligent search has been conducted and responsive documents are not in
their possession, custody, or control.21 To the extent County defendants have already produced
responsive documents, they are directed to identify such documents by bates numbers.

Conferral Demand No. 2 and Request No. 2 of plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Discovery Demands seek documents reflecting the reasons any of the Confidential Informant(s)
were on Hill’s “keep away” list at the jail. (Docket ## 132 at 4; 140 at 4). The Court finds that
this request is relevant to the extent the Confidential Informant(s) were placed on Hill’s keep
away list prior to the cell search and extraction. Therefore, by March 27, 2023, County
defendants are directed to produce responsive documents concerning any of the Confidential
Informant(s) on Hill’s keep away list during the three-year period preceding November 7, 2017,
or confirm in writing that a diligent search has been conducted and responsive documents are not
in their possession, custody, or control.22 To the extent County defendants have already
produced responsive documents, they are directed to identify such documents by bates numbers.

Conferral Demands Nos. 3, 7 and 8 and Requests Nos. 1 and 5 of plaintiff’s
Second Set of Discovery Demands seek reports and investigations – and statements made by the
Confidential Informant(s) – about the possession of contraband by Hill and/or the Confidential
Informant(s) on or about November 7, 2017. (Docket ## 132 at 3, 6; 140 at 5, 7). Request No. 1
of plaintiffs’ Second Set of Discovery Demands also seeks statements made by the Confidential

21 Request No. 5 of plaintiffs’ Second Set of Discovery Demands seeks “all follow up investigative reports
on the informants[’] allegations.” (Docket # 132 at 6). Because the relevant inquiry concerns defendants’
knowledge of the reliability of the Confidential Informant(s) prior to the search and extraction on November 7,
2017, this request is not relevant insofar as it seeks information after Hill’s cell extraction.

22 Of course, as stated supra, if County defendants believe redactions are appropriate for safety and
security reasons, they should make the redactions, produce the redacted documents to plaintiffs, along with the
justification for the redactions, and provide unredacted copies to the Court.
Informant(s) to Niagara County Jail personnel about Hill’s cell extraction. (Docket # 132 at 3).
I find that these requests seek relevant documents and direct the County defendants to produce
responsive documents by March 27, 2023, or confirm in writing that a diligent search has been
conducted and responsive documents are not in their possession, custody, or control. To the

extent County defendants have already produced responsive documents, they are directed to
identify such documents by bates numbers.
Relatedly, Request No. 4 of plaintiffs’ Second Set of Discovery Demands seeks
“all the disciplinary actions such as reports[,] to-from communications[,] and employees[’]
official statements concerning information received from [the Confidential Informant(s)] to
coordinate [a] jail bust for contraband smuggled into the prison.” (Docket # 132 at 5). This
request is difficult to decipher. That said, by March 27, 2023, County defendants are directed to
provide copies of statements or reports that they made reflecting or analyzing the information
provided by the Confidential Informant(s) regarding Hill’s alleged possession and/or distribution
of contraband or confirm in writing that a diligent search has been conducted and responsive

documents are not in their possession, custody, or control. To the extent County defendants have
already produced responsive documents, they are directed to identify such documents by bates
numbers.
Conferral Demand No. 4 and Request No. 6 of plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Discovery Demands23 seek documents reflecting the commissary purchases and financial
transactions of the Confidential Informant(s) for the month of November 2017. (Docket ## 140
at 6; 132 at 6). In the event that County defendants reviewed or were provided such information
prior to Hill’s extraction, by March 27, 2023, they should provide responsive documents or

23 To the extent plaintiffs also demand that County defendants “verify the items bought and amount spent”
(Docket # 132 at 6), that request is denied.
confirm in writing that a diligent search has been conducted and responsive documents are not in
their possession, custody, or control. To the extent County defendants have already produced
responsive documents, they are directed to identify such documents by bates numbers.
Conferral Demand No. 10 seeks documents showing the housing locations of

Confidential Informant(s) from March 16, 1990, to August 24, 2017. (Docket # 140 at 9). In the
event that County defendants investigated or determined on or before November 7, 2017,
whether Hill and any of the Confidential Informant(s) had previously been incarcerated in the
same facility at the same time, they are directed to produce any documents reflecting such
investigation or review by March 27, 2023, or confirm in writing that a diligent search has been
conducted and responsive documents are not in their possession, custody, or control. To the
extent County defendants have already produced responsive documents, they are directed to
identify such documents by bates numbers.
Conferral Demand No. 9 and Requests Nos. 1 and 4 of plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Discovery Demands seek copies of agreements made with or promises made to the Confidential

Informant(s) for information provided about matters occurring in the jail, including but not
limited to information on or about November 7, 2017. (Docket ## 132 at 3, 5; 140 at 8). The
request is overbroad. By March 27, 2023, County defendants are directed to provide plaintiffs
with responsive documents concerning agreements or promises concerning information provided
by the Confidential Informant(s) about Hill on or about November 7, 2017, or confirm in writing
that a diligent search has been conducted and responsive documents are not in their possession,
custody, or control. To the extent County defendants have already produced responsive
documents, they are directed to identify such documents by bates numbers.
Request No. 3 of plaintiffs’ Second Set of Discovery Demands seeks all
disciplinary reports from 2017 concerning the Confidential Informant(s), the disposition of all
charges, and any sanctions imposed. (Docket # 132 at 4). Again, this request is overbroad. By
March 27, 2023, County defendants are directed to provide responsive documents for the

three-year period preceding November 7, 2017, that relate to charges of false statements or acts
of dishonesty by the Confidential Informant(s) or confirm in writing that a diligent search has
been conducted and responsive documents are not in their possession, custody, or control. To
the extent County defendants have already produced responsive documents, they are directed to
identify such documents by bates numbers.
Because the March 8 Order provided guidance (but not directives) to the parties to
assist in their conferral about these demands, this Court denies plaintiffs’ request for sanctions,
including attorneys’ fees (see, e.g., Docket ## 143 at 14, 20; 152 at 17, 22-24), based on County
defendant’s responses to these demands.
B. Additional Discovery Disputes

Request No. 12 of the First Set of Discovery Demands seeks “all
communications, appeals, complaints and notice[s] of Defendants Longhren [sic] and Voutour
[sic] and any response concerning Plaintiffs[’] treatment at Niagara County Jail from October
2017 through September 2018.” (Docket # 100-2 at 3-4 (emphasis added)). Although plaintiffs’
request is not a model of clarity, County defendants contend that they have produced all
responsive documents. (Docket # 100-3 at 7-8). Plaintiffs counter that County defendants have
not produced responses from Kevin Payne to Commissioner Loughren, although they do not
articulate a factual basis for believing that Kevin Payne responded directly to Loughren’s
communications.24 (Docket # 152 at 10-11). If County defendants have already produced all
responsive documents,25 they should identify those documents by bates number by March 27,
2023. In the event that County defendants have not produced responses by Kevin Payne to
Commissioner Loughren, they should produce the documents; otherwise, they should confirm in

writing that such documents are not within their possession, custody, or control.
Second, Request No. 19 of plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Demands requests all
inmate witness statements concerning the November 7, 2017 extraction of Hill. (See Docket
# 100-3 at 9). County defendants replied that they have no documents responsive to this demand
other than what may have been contained in Hill’s jail file that was previously produced.
(Docket # 131 at 9; see also Docket # 140 at 13). Plaintiffs reason that County defendants must
be withholding evidence because Payne, in his response to Hill’s appeal about witnesses,
indicated that inmates made statements about the incident. (Docket # 152 at 14). Review of that
document, however, shows that Payne simply responded that Hill’s “[r]equest to review video
recordings and inmate statements is denied.” (Docket # 16-1 at 23). It did not indicate that such
written statements existed.26 On this record, plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied. If

plaintiffs have a factual basis to believe that County defendants have withheld responsive
documents, they should confer with defendants. The Court also directs County defendants by no

24 For this reason, the Court disagrees with plaintiffs that County defendants’ failure to produce such
documents evidences bad faith (see Docket # 152 at 11) and denies plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.

25 The Court interprets the request to include documents that reflect actions Kevin Payne took in response
to Commissioner Loughren’s communications.

26 The Court has also reviewed the form that reflects Hill’s charges, the disposition of those charges, and
the sanctions imposed. (Docket # 145-3 at 3). The document states that certain sanctions were imposed “[b]ased on
the inmates [sic] statements.” (Id.). The hearing officer did not, however, check the box on the form indicating that
he considered “[w]itnesses statement(s),” although he checked the box indicating that he considered “[i]nmate’s
statement(s).” (Id.).
later than March 27, 2023 to identify by bates numbers any responsive documents previously
produced in Hill’s jail file.
Conferral Demand No. 6 requests photographs of any contraband turned over by
the Confidential Informant(s).27 (See Docket # 140 at 6). County defendants object to this

request as imposing an obligation beyond what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require
since they do not possess any such photographs. (Id.). Although defendants are correct that they
cannot be compelled “to produce that which does not exist,” Head v. Artus, 2018 WL 635919, *3
(W.D.N.Y. 2018), Rule 34(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure affords plaintiffs the
right to request inspection of property possessed or controlled by the responding party, see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, by March 27, 2023, defendants should permit Hill, Pittman, or
an agreed-upon designee to inspect the contraband under appropriate supervision; alternatively,
defendants may elect to take and provide photographs of the contraband.
Conferral Demand No. 20 seeks all written requests for witnesses and documents
for the disciplinary hearing held on November 8, 2017. (Docket # 140 at 13). To the extent this

demand overlaps with plaintiffs’ First Set for Discovery Demands No. 11 and Conferral Demand
No. 21 – regarding Hill’s disciplinary hearing appeals, answering decisions, or any formal
responses, including Hill’s disciplinary appeal challenging the denial of witnesses and
documents – the Court directs the parties to its discussion of those requests supra. To the extent
there was an initial request – rather than an appeal – related to witnesses and documents, County
defendants must produce such documents. To the extent County defendants have already

27 The demand also requests forms signed by any Confidential Informant(s) “verifying” the contraband.
(See Docket # 140 at 6). By March 27, 2023, defendants should produce any such documents or identify such
documents by bates number. They may redact any Confidential Informant’s name or Department Identification
Number (“DIN”) but must provide unredacted copies of such documents to the Court. If defendants do not possess
any responsive documents, they must state that.
produced the documents, they should identify those documents by bates number. In the event
such documents have not been produced, by no later than March 27, 2023, County defendants
should produce the documents or confirm in writing that such documents are not in their
possession, custody, or control.

Related to First Set of Discovery Demand No. 12, Conferral Demand No. 25
seeks Commissioner Loughren’s communications to the county jail concerning the ongoing
disciplinary treatment of Hill from November 7, 2017 to February 4, 2018. (Docket # 140 at 16).
County defendants objected to this request as more properly directed to Commissioner
Loughren. (Id.). County defendants’ objection is improper. They are directed to search for and
produce all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control by March 27, 2023. If
such documents have already been produced by County defendants, they must identify such
documents by bates numbers.28
Additionally, several of plaintiffs’ motions refer to the body camera of defendant
Wilson that was allegedly recording on the day of the disciplinary hearing. (Docket ## 141 at

11; 152 at 24). Conferral Demand No. 23 relates to this alleged camera footage. (See Docket
# 140 at 15). County defendants responded by directing plaintiffs to all body camera footage
previously produced and confirmed that there is no additional body camera footage in their
possession, custody, or control that is responsive to this demand. (Id.). Hill claims that he told
defendant Wilson to turn on his body camera during the disciplinary proceeding, that Wilson
stated it was already recording, and that County defendants have deliberately destroyed this
evidence. (Docket ## 143 at 27; 152 at 24). If camera footage of the disciplinary proceedings

28 The Court’s directives similarly apply to the parties’ dispute about Conferral Demand No. 35, which
requests “[a]ll communication from Commissioner to [Chief] Payne concerning the plaintiffs[’] complaints
regarding being denied their rights to marriage” and states that “[g]rievance decisions and appeals on marriage
grievances [have not been] produced.” (Docket # 140 at 19).
has already been produced by County defendants, they must identify by March 27, 2023 where
the footage may be found. If it has not, County defendants are directed to search for and produce
it if it is in their possession, custody, or control. They must indicate if such footage once existed
but cannot be located or produced; if so, they must provide the circumstances of its loss or

destruction.
In the pending motions, plaintiffs also appear to challenge the accuracy of certain
discovery responses.29 (See, e.g., Docket # 141 at 11). This decision properly addresses the
adequacy, not the accuracy, of challenged discovery responses. Moreover, insofar as plaintiffs’
motions may be construed as requests for substantive rulings on objections, rather than
fully-briefed requests for orders compelling production, that application is denied. (See, e.g.,
Docket # 143 at 26, 29, 30). It is not the role of the Court to speculate on issues and arguments
not explicitly before the Court. Relatedly, the Court denies plaintiffs’ request for a special
master to review County defendants’ responses. (Docket # 152). The purpose of a special
master is not to investigate whether a party’s discovery responses are truthful (id. at 3) or

whether a party complied with his employer’s document creation and retention policies (id. at
11-13, 25).
On this record, plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions (see, e.g., Docket ## 143 at 18,
29, 30; 152 at 5), including adverse inference instructions, relating to County defendants’
discovery responses are denied without prejudice to renewal in the event that County defendants
do not comply with the instructions herein.

29 Plaintiffs seek sanctions and an adverse inference instruction based upon County defendants’
representation that they do not possess prior authorization forms relating to the strip search that occurred on
November 8, 2017. (See Docket # 143 at 24). To the extent plaintiffs argue that jail policy required prior
authorization, and the absence of such documentation amounts to spoliation, plaintiffs have made an insufficient
showing. Simply alleging that the document was required to exist does not prove that the document in fact existed
and was improperly destroyed. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions related to defendants’ non-production of strip search
authorization forms is denied on this record.
V. Motions to Extend Scheduling Order
County defendants request extensions of deadlines to complete plaintiffs’
depositions and to file dispositive motions. (Docket ## 145-4 at 17; 150-1 at ¶¶ 37-39).
Plaintiffs do not oppose those requests. I find good cause exists to extend the scheduling order.

This Court’s March 8, 2022 Amended Scheduling Order (Docket # 120) shall be amended as
follows:
1. By March 27, 2023, County defendants shall provide supplemental
discovery responses as directed above.
2. By March 27, 2023, defendants shall provide the Court with written
notice of the arrangements for party depositions.
3. All discovery in this case shall conclude on May 15, 2023. All motions
for protective orders or to compel discovery shall be filed on or before May 31, 2023.
4. Plaintiffs shall identify any expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(A) and provide reports pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and/or disclosures pursuant to Rule

26(a)(2)(C) by June 9, 2023. Defendants shall identify any expert witnesses and provide reports
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 by July 7, 2023. Parties shall complete all discovery relating to
experts, including depositions, by August 4, 2023.
5. All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than September 8, 2023.
NOTE: If the dispositive motion is filed against a party who is appearing in this action pro
se, the moving party must include the advisement set forth in the notice attached to this
Order.
6. Responding papers are due by October 6, 2023. Reply papers, if any,
shall be filed by October 20, 2023. The motion will be taken under advisement without oral
argument.
7. If no dispositive motions are filed, defense counsel shall notify the Court

in writing on or before the dispositive motion deadline date.
8. No extension of the above cutoff dates will be granted except upon written
joint motion, filed prior to the cutoff date, showing good cause for the extension.
9. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), if a party or party’s attorney
fails to obey this scheduling order or fails to participate in good faith, this Court will enter
appropriate sanctions against that party or that party’s attorney.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of a special
master (Docket # 126) is DENIED. To the extent plaintiffs’ remaining motions seek an order to

compel (Docket ## 141, 143, 152), they are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
specified above; supplemental responses to plaintiffs’ discovery demand are due on or before
March 27, 2023. To the extent the motions seek other relief (Docket ## 141, 143, 152), they are
DENIED.
County defendants’ motion for appointment of a special master to supervise the
remaining depositions (Docket # 145) is DENIED. County defendants’ motions for an
extension of time to complete discovery (Docket # 145) and to file dispositive motions (Docket
# 150) are GRANTED, and the March 8, 2022 Amended Scheduling Order (Docket # 120) is
amended as specified above.
The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to amend the caption of the case to
correct the spelling of defendant Thomas Loughren’s name.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: Rochester, New York
March 3, 2023
PRO SE NOTICE

Plaintiff is hereby advised that the defendant has asked the Court to decide this case
without a trial, based on written materials, including affidavits, submitted in support of the
motion. THE CLAIMS PLAINTIFF ASSERTS IN HIS/HER COMPLAINT MAY BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT A TRIAL IF HE/SHE DOES NOT RESPOND TO THIS
MOTION by filing his/her own sworn affidavits or other papers as required by Rules 56(c)
and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An affidavit is a sworn statement of fact
based on personal knowledge that would be admissible in evidence at trial.

In short, Rule 56 provides that plaintiff may NOT oppose summary judgment
simply by relying upon the allegations in the complaint. Rather, plaintiff must submit
evidence, such as witness statements or documents, countering the facts asserted by the
defendant and raising issues of fact for trial. Any witness statements, which may include
plaintiff’s own statements, must be in the form of affidavits. Plaintiff may file and serve
affidavits that were prepared specifically in response to defendant’s motion for summary
judgment.

Any issue of fact that plaintiff wishes to raise in opposition to the motion for
summary judgment must be supported by affidavits or by other documentary evidence
contradicting the facts asserted by defendant. If plaintiff does not respond to the motion
for summary judgment on time with affidavits or documentary evidence contradicting the
facts asserted by defendant, the Court may accept defendant’s factual assertions as true.
Judgment may then be entered in defendant’s favor without a trial.

Pursuant to Rules 7(a) and 56(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the
Western District of New York, plaintiff is required to file and serve the following papers in
opposition to this motion: (1) a memorandum of law containing relevant factual and legal
argument; (2) one or more affidavits in opposition to the motion; and (3) a separate, short,
and concise statement of the material facts as to which plaintiff contends there exists a
genuine issue to be tried, followed by citation to admissible evidence. In the absence of
such a statement by plaintiff, all material facts set forth in defendant’s statement of
material facts not in dispute will be deemed admitted. A copy of the Local Rules to which
reference has been made may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office of the Court.

If plaintiff has any questions, he/she may direct them to the Pro Se Office.

Plaintiff must file and serve any supplemental affidavits or materials in opposition
to defendant’s motion no later than the date they are due as provided in Rule 7(b) of the
Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Western District of New York.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10365900. Public record. Not legal advice.