Bakambia v. Schnell

Background

Marc Amouri Bakambia alleged that he was injured in fights on May 20 and 21, 2019, and that defendants failed to protect him. He also alleged cruel and unusual punishment, discrimination based on custodial status, and discrimination based on national origin. The order addressed several discovery motions, a request for a written explanation, a sanctions motion, a motion to reconsider the denial of appointed counsel, and requests concerning a compact disc containing surveillance footage.

First Motion to Compel

The court granted in part and denied in part Bakambia’s First Motion to Compel. It denied requests to Kenneth Peterson for comparator evidence involving other inmates because Bakambia had not shown that those individuals were sufficiently similarly situated. It granted requests for disciplinary records for the five inmates Bakambia said assaulted him and for Bakambia’s own disciplinary records.

As to Scott Maki, the court granted the request for existing records showing where Maki worked on May 20 and 21, 2019, but denied it as to July dates. It also granted the request for documents identifying the officer in charge on May 20, 2019, and denied it as to the other dates. The defendants were not required to create records that did not exist.

The court denied Bakambia’s requests to Vicki Janssen for certain cell logs because they were ambiguous, denied another cell-log request as minimally relevant and overbroad, and denied requests for mental-health records because those records were irrelevant to the claims remaining in this case. It granted the request for records concerning a complaint against Officer Tatum, to the extent the documents existed, because the court had allowed Tatum to be added as a defendant. As to Paul Gammel, the court denied both the request for a written explanation and the related discovery request, stating that it would not require a report to be created for the litigation. It granted the request for existing disciplinary records relating to staff scheduling of Bakambia’s recreation time on May 21, 2019.

As to David Schmitt, the court granted the request for existing records showing which units Schmitt worked in on May 20 and 21, 2019, but denied requests for reports concerning incidents on July 7 and July 10, 2019, because they were insufficiently relevant or not shown to be relevant.

Second Motion to Compel and Sanctions

The court denied the Second Motion to Compel. It found that defendants’ initial disclosures were timely and complete, and it rejected Bakambia’s claim that defendants had manipulated postage dates because he offered only speculation. The court explained that Bakambia was one side of the litigation and therefore could serve no more than 25 interrogatories, 25 document requests, and 25 requests for admission in total, rather than 25 of each type on every defendant.

The court also denied all relief based on Bakambia’s argument that defendants violated filing and service rules by sending documents without court pagination. This included the sanctions motion and related requests for surveillance footage and a written explanation.

Third Motion to Compel

The court construed Bakambia’s Third Motion to Compel as also requesting an extension of the discovery deadline. It granted a seven-day extension after finding good cause and determining that the extension would not prejudice defendants. The court therefore found that Bakambia’s interrogatories and requests for admission were not untimely.

The court nevertheless found that only specified requests were proper. It granted the Third Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory No. 2; Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15; Request for Admission Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 9, 11 and 12, 14, 16 through 23, and 25. The order required defendants to respond to those requests by November 30, 2021.

Reconsideration and Surveillance Disc

The court denied Bakambia’s Motion for Reconsideration of the prior denial of appointed counsel. Bakambia had not obtained permission to file the motion and had not identified a legal error or presented new evidence affecting the earlier ruling.

The court confirmed that it had received the compact disc containing surveillance footage and that the disc had been filed with the Clerk’s Office. It denied Bakambia’s requests to review the files through court processes and to compel disclosure of additional footage. The court stated that Bakambia could send a new letter if he wanted the disc returned.

Disposition and Schedule

Discovery was closed except for the additional discovery authorized in the order. The deadline for dispositive motions was extended to December 21, 2021. The order was signed by Katherine Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge.