I. BACKGROUND

In this case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated at Rikers Island on February 27, 2012, several officers assaulted him in violation of his constitutional rights. See Complaint, filed Aug. 6, 2014 (Docket # 1) (“Compl.”). By Order dated December 30, 2015 (Docket # 24), the Court required defendants to respond to the Standard Discovery in Prisoner Pro Se Actions pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.2 by March 2, 2015, which defendants did on March 2, 2015, see Def. Ltr. at 1-2; Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff's Local Rule 33.2 Requests, annexed as Ex. C to Second Def. Ltr. (“Def. 33.2 Resp.” or “Rule 33.2 response”). On March 10, 2015, a notice of plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for documents and admissions, postmarked March 3, 2015, was filed with the court (Docket # 30) (“Pl. Requests”). Defendants’ response to these interrogatories and document requests was dated April 2, 2015. See Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, annexed as Ex. A to Second Def. Ltr. (“Def. Interrog. Resp.”). Their response to the requests for admission was dated April 6, 2015. See Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, annexed as Ex. B to Second Def. Ltr. (“Def. RFA Resp.”).

*2 On March 19, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion asserting that defendants had been untimely in their Rule 33.2 response, and objecting to the fact that the response was not sworn under penalty of perjury. See Pl. Mot. at 1-3.[2] Plaintiff requested discovery sanctions against defendants or their counsel on those grounds. See id. at 1-2. He also claimed that the response lacked certain information about the individual defendants and that it was inaccurate in various respects. See id. at 1-4. Additionally, plaintiff requested additional documents and permission to issue 100 more interrogatories and requests for admission per defendant. See id. at 3-7. Finally, plaintiff objected to the subpoena duces tecum for medical records that defendants had apparently served upon him. See id. at 6. On March 27, 2015, defendants filed a letter opposing this motion. See Def. Ltr. at 1-3. They also asked that the Court order plaintiff to execute and return certain medical releases, which they needed in order to prepare for plaintiff's deposition, and requested a 60-day extension of discovery in order to obtain the records and take plaintiff's deposition. See id. at 3.

On April 9, 2015, plaintiff filed an “addendum” to the March 19th motion. See Second Pl. Ltr. (submission dated April 5, 2015 and filed April 9, 2015). In it, he complained that defendants had not responded to his interrogatories, requests for admission, and document requests, and he reiterated his request for sanctions. See id. He also objected to defendants taking his deposition on April 9, 2015, because a judicial order would be required given his current incarceration. See id. Additionally, plaintiff objected to the undersigned's “non-responses [and] non-answers” to his previous submissions and claimed that the undersigned “is prejudicial and [b]iased against plaintiff.” Id. Defendants responded by letter filed April 15, 2015, arguing that their Rule 33.2 response and their responses to plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for admission were timely. See Second Def. Ltr. at 1-2. Additionally, they renewed their request for an order requiring plaintiff to execute and return the medical releases and for a 60-day extension of discovery. See id. at 2.

On April 20, 2015, plaintiff filed another letter. See Third Pl. Ltr. In it, he reiterated several of the arguments made in previous submissions, and he claimed that defendants’ letter in opposition to his March 19th motion was untimely. See id. at 1-3. He also claimed that defense counsel had tampered with date stamps on envelopes sent to him so that late responses would appear timely. See id. at 1. Plaintiff requested that defense counsel be removed from the case, held in contempt of court, and sanctioned. See id. at 1-2. Additionally, plaintiff objected to defendants’ request that he sign medical release forms because it came in the form of subpoenas from defense counsel and requested records other than those relating to the incident alleged in the complaint, which he viewed as “irrelevant” to this case. Id. at 3. He also contended that he should not have to sign the release forms because defendants had access to his medical records through the Freedom of Information Law or through the Department of Corrections records. See id. Finally, plaintiff objected to defendants’ request for an extension of the discovery deadline, on the grounds defense counsel did not ask for his consent to the extension before bringing the request to the Court. See id. at 2. Defendants responded to this letter on May 4, 2014. See Third Def. Ltr. Defense counsel denied any untimeliness in his responses or any tampering with date stamps, and he objected to plaintiff's request that he be removed from the case. See id. at 1 - 2. Defendants contended that they did not have access to plaintiff's medical records, as they are protected from disclosure under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or “HIPAA.” See id. at 2.

*3 On April 22, 2015, defendants responded to the additional document requests contained in the March 19 motion. See Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Additional Requests for Production of Documents, annexed as Ex. A to Third Def. Ltr. They also submitted supplemental disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). See Defendants’ First Supplemental Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), annexed as Ex. B to Third Def. Ltr. Plaintiff sent another letter, dated April 25, 2015, and filed May 1, 2015. See Fourth Pl. Ltr. In it, he reiterated his contention that defendants were untimely in their various responses and that those responses were unsworn and incomplete. See id. He requested again that defense counsel be sanctioned. See id. Finally, plaintiff made two more submissions, both filed on May 12, 2015. See Fifth Pl. Ltr.; Sixth Pl. Ltr. He again objected to the undersigned's “non-judicial orders,” Fifth Pl. Ltr., and claimed that defense counsel's various responses had been untimely, unsworn, and incomplete, see id.; Sixth Pl. Ltr. He also objected to defense counsel's sending him an unsigned protective order. See Fifth Pl. Ltr.

We now address the issues raised by the parties’ submissions as best as we can discern them.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Disqualification Requests

Plaintiff appears to request that the undersigned be disqualified. See Second Pl. Ltr. He states that the undersigned has not ruled on unspecified “motions” and “requests” pending “[s]ince 12/10/14, 2/19/15, and 3/19/15,” and that the undersigned is “prejudicial and [b]iased against plaintiff and is for defendants.” Id. (capitalization omitted); see Fifth Pl. Ltr. The request for disqualification is denied. Claims of judicial bias must ordinarily be “based on extrajudicial matters, and adverse rulings, without more, will rarely suffice to provide a reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality.” Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, 552 F.3d 218, 227 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not shown any conduct reflecting bias. The Court in fact harbors no bias against plaintiff.[3]

Plaintiff also requests that defense counsel be disqualified from this case. See Pl. Mot. at 2; Third Pl. Ltr. at 1; Fourth Pl. Ltr. As the Court noted in its Order dated December 30, 2014 (Docket # 24), with rare exceptions, parties are entitled to hire counsel of their choosing. Plaintiff's assertions that defense counsel has been untimely, incomplete, or inaccurate in his responses to discovery requests, and that defense counsel suffers from “an irreparable conflict of interest,” Third Pl. Ltr. at 1 (capitalization omitted), are not sufficient reason for the Court to remove the counsel that defendants have chosen to appear for them. This request is therefore denied.

B. Timeliness of Defendants’ Responses

According to plaintiff, defendants did not timely submit their Rule 33.2 response, did not serve initial disclosures, and did not timely respond to plaintiff's interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission. See Pl. Mot. at 1; Second Pl. Ltr.; Third Pl. Ltr. at 1-4; Fourth Pl. Ltr; Fifth Pl. Ltr.; Sixth Pl. Ltr. We do not believe that plaintiff has shown that any of the responses were untimely for various reasons — though even if we thought they were untimely by a short period we would excuse the untimeliness as no prejudice has been shown.

*4 With respect to the Rule 33.2 responses, they were due March 2, 2015, see Order, dated Dec. 30, 2014 (Docket # 24), at 2, and defendants mailed them on that date, see Def. 33.2 Resp. at 13 (Declaration of Service by Mail).[4] As for the initial disclosures, none are required in cases filed by pro se incarcerated plaintiffs such as this, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), and thus there is no deadline for their service. As for the responses to plaintiff's interrogatories, requests for admission, and document requests, these are all due 30 days after service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A), 36(a)(3). Where service is made by mail, three days are added to these deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Here, plaintiff's interrogatories to defendants, requests for admission, and document requests are contained in a document dated February 19, 2015. See Pl. Requests. While there is a declaration of service stating that they were served on defendants by mail on February 28, 2015, see id. at 8, the envelope in which it was mailed is postmarked March 3, 2015. Given that defendants’ responses and objections to the interrogatories and document requests are dated April 2, 2015, see Def. Interrog. Resp. at 22, they are obviously timely. Defendants’ response to the requests for admission are dated April 6, 2015, see Def. RFA Resp. at 17, and thus also are timely calculating from date of the postmark.[5]

C. Defendants’ Responses Are Unsworn

Plaintiff also objects that defendants’ various responses to his discovery requests have not been sworn under penalty of perjury. See Pl. Mot. at 2; Third Pl. Ltr. at 1; Fourth Pl. Ltr.; Sixth Pl. Ltr. The only discovery responses that must be sworn under penalty of perjury are responses to interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). While defendants objected to all of plaintiff's interrogatories, they also gave substantive responses to some interrogatories. See Def. Interrog. Resp. at 3-11; see also Def. 33.2 Resp. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) requires that such substantive responses be answered “under oath.” The form interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.2 repeat this requirement. Accordingly, to the extent responses have been provided to any interrogatories, defendants must verify under oath their responses. If the re-answered responses are provided by June 12, 2015, the Court will accept those responses as timely. In the next section, the Court is directing defendants to give additional responses to plaintiff's interrogatories. Obviously, these responses should also be made under oath.

D. Completeness of Defendants’ Responses

Plaintiff contends that all of defendants’ Rule 33.2 responses and their responses to interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission are incomplete. See Pl. Mot. at 2-4; Third Pl. Ltr. at 2, 4; Sixth Pl. Ltr.[6] Plaintiff's central complaint in fact seems to be that the responses are inaccurate. However, the Court cannot adjudicate such a claim as part of the discovery process. Any issues regarding the accuracy of the responses can be raised only as part of the trial or summary judgment processes.

The Court has reviewed defendants’ objections and responses to the Rule 33.2 interrogatories and plaintiff's own interrogatories. We have also reviewed defendants’ responses to plaintiff's requests for admission, which rely in part on their objections and responses to plaintiff's interrogatories. Finally, we have reviewed the defendants’ responses to plaintiffs’ document requests and the documents that have in fact been produced. We sustain all of the defendants’ objections, and find any complaints by plaintiffs about the responses meritless, except as described below.

*5 1. Local Civil Rule 33.2 Standard Discovery in Prisoner Pro Se Actions:

2. Pl. Requests at 1-2 (interrogatories):

3. Pl. Requests at 5-6 (requests for admission):

4. Pl. Requests at 2-4 (document requests):

E. Plaintiff Requests Additional Information About the Individual Defendants

Plaintiff has requested the full names, phone numbers, and addresses of the individual defendants. See Pl. Mot. at 2; Third Pl. Ltr. at 4. Defendants argue that providing this information would jeopardize the security and privacy of these individuals, and that the information they have already provided — their last names, shield numbers, and service addresses — is sufficient for the purposes of this case. See Def. Ltr. at 2. We agree that there is no reason why the individual defendants’ home addresses and phone numbers are relevant in this matter given that they have all waived service. See Waiver of Service of Summons Executed, filed Oct. 10, 2014 (Docket # 12). As for these defendants’ first names, plaintiff does not allege that he has had any difficulty requesting or obtaining discovery from defendants based on this lack of knowledge. We therefore do not consider it necessary for plaintiff to be provided with the individual defendants’ first names at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for additional information about the individual defendants is denied.

F. Plaintiff's Request to Serve Additional Interrogatories and Requests for Admission

*6 Plaintiff has requested permission to serve an additional 100 interrogatories and 100 requests for admission on each defendant. See Pl. Mot. at 3; see also Third Pl. Ltr. at 2. He justifies this request on the ground that he will not be taking depositions. See Pl. Mot. at 3; Third Pl. Ltr. at 2. Plaintiff has already served 25 interrogatories directed at all defendants. See Pl. Requests at 1-2. He has also served 45 requests for admission. See id. at 5-6. Many of these are duplicative. See id. at 1-2, 5-6. Many of the requests are also objectionable. See id. Under these circumstances, plaintiff has not demonstrated any need to serve additional interrogatories and requests for admission. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) (a party is normally limited to 25 interrogatories); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A) (the court may limit the number of requests for admission a party may serve). This request is therefore denied.

G. Protective Order

Plaintiff makes reference to his receipt of an “unsigned ORDER FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUEST.” Fifth Pl. Ltr. (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff is not obligated to sign any proposed protective Order. The plaintiff should be aware, however, that the Court may issue a protective order without the plaintiff's agreement if the Court deems such an order appropriate. Accordingly, to the extent defendants seek to limit dissemination of any discovery materials, they may make an application to the Court, on notice to plaintiff, for a protective order. If defendants make such an application, plaintiff shall respond within 14 days.

H. Defendants’ Request for an Order Requiring Plaintiff to Execute Medical Record Authorizations

Defendants request that the Court order plaintiff to sign authorizations for the release of his medical records to the defendants, which apparently had previously been sent to plaintiff. See Def Ltr. at 3; Second Def. Ltr. at 2; Third Def. Ltr. at 2. Plaintiff argues that he should not be required to sign these authorizations because the records requested are irrelevant to this case and because defendants have access to those records from other sources. See Third Pl. Ltr. at 3. Because the complaint alleges physical injuries from the incident, see Compl. at 3; Compl. part 3 at 2, his medical records are relevant. Moreover, the defendants state that they do not have access to these records and are precluded from obtaining plaintiff's medical records without authorization by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (or “HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6. See Third Def. Ltr. at 2. The Court notes that “in any lawsuit where the plaintiff is alleging physical and emotional injuries, it is standard procedure for the judge to direct the plaintiff to sign a HIPPA [sic]-compliant authorization for the release of his complete medical, pharmacy, psychiatric or psychological treatment or counseling records.” Hockenjos v. City of New York, 2014 WL 3530895, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2014) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff is therefore ordered to sign authorizations for the release of his medical records and return those authorizations to defendants on or before June 12, 2015. He is warned that if he fails to sign these releases, he may be precluded from offering any evidence that he was injured or his case may be dismissed.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's requests (including Docket # 32) are granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion (Docket # 33) is granted as stated above.

In summary, plaintiff's request for recusal and for sanctions against defendants or their counsel is denied. Plaintiff's requests for additional responses to his interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission are granted in part, as specified above. Defendants shall provide these responses by June 12, 2015. All other requests made by plaintiff are denied. In addition, plaintiff is ordered to sign the authorizations for the release of his medical records previously provided to him by defendants, and return those authorizations to defendants by June 12, 2015.

*7 To allow the parties time to complete additional discovery necessitated by this order, and for defendants to review plaintiff's medical records and take his deposition, the deadline for completion of discovery is hereby extended to September 30, 2015. The deadline for any request to the undersigned for permission to make a summary judgment is also extended to September 30, 2015.

SO ORDERED.

See Notice of Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Pursuant to Rule 37), Motion to Compel Discovery (Pursuant to Rules 26-36), Local Civil Rule 33.2 Violations, Statements of Objections, Additional Requests for Production of Documents (Rules 26, 34), and Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants’ Local Civil Rule 33.2 Submissions, Deposition (Rule 30) Objections, Contempt of Court and Perjury, filed Mar. 19, 2015 (Docket # 32) (“Pl. Mot.” or the “March 19th motion”); Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Response to Plaintiff's “Motion for Discovery Sanctions,” filed Mar. 27, 2015 (Docket # 33) (“Def. Ltr.”); Notice of Plaintiff [sic] Addendum to Motion to Compel, Statement of Objections, Requests for Sanctions (Violations of Federal Rules 26-37), Request to Compel Self-Injunctions by Court Addressed to Hon. Loretta Preska (Chief Judge) and Hon. George B. Daniels (USDJ) for Intervention Pursuant to Rule 24, filed Apr. 9, 2015 (Docket # 34) (“Second Pl. Ltr.”); Letter from Matthew Bridge, filed Apr. 15, 2015 (Docket # 35) (“Second Def. Ltr.”); Notice of Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Untimely Responses to Rule 26(a)-32, 33, 34, 36 and 37 (Dated: March 27, 2015) Statement of Objections, and Requests of the Court, filed Apr. 20, 2015 (Docket # 36) (“Third Pl. Ltr.”); Notice of Plaintiff's Letter Addressed to the Court, filed May 1, 2015 (Docket # 38) (“Fourth Pl. Ltr.”); Letter from Matthew Bridge, filed May 4, 2015 (Docket # 37) (“Third Def. Ltr.”); Notice of Plaintiff's Requests for the Court and Petition for Compulsion of Judicial Orders by Magistrate G.W. Gorenstein (USDM), filed May 12, 2015 (Docket # 39) (“Fifth Pl. Ltr.”); Notice of Plaintiff's Addendum Petition and Requests for Intervention (Rule 24), Local Civil Rule 37.2 Requests, and Discovery Sanctions, Perjury Sanctions, and Contempt of Court Sanctions for Defendants, and Judicial Injunctions, filed May 12, 2015 (Docket # 40) (“Sixth Pl. Ltr.”).

We use the March 19 motion's internal pagination rather than the ECF-assigned pagination when referencing specific pages from this motion.

On the separate point of allegedly unresolved motions, plaintiff has made numerous filings in this matter, some of which are purportedly addressed to other judges, see Notice of Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants’ Counsel's Letter Dated 12/24/14*, Notice of Affirmation Letter to Hon. Loretta A. Preska, Hon. G.B. Daniels (USDJ) and Objections to Magistrate G.W. Gorenstein's 12/30/14 Decision-Order, Intervention (Rule 24), filed Jan. 16, 2015 (Docket # 26), and some of which are largely duplicative of prior requests, see, e.g., Notice of Plaintiff's Affirmation Letter to the Court, Statement of Objections, and Request for Intervention (Pursuant to Rule 24), filed Feb. 10, 2015 (Docket # 29); Third Pl. Ltr.; Fourth Pl. Ltr.; Fifth Pl. Ltr.; Sixth Pl. Ltr. He has also apparently included requests to the Court in a document identified as a discovery request. See Pl. Requests at 7. Plaintiff's filing of repetitious requests has prolonged this matter inasmuch as the Court has delayed rulings in order to give defendants an opportunity to respond.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), the mailing on March 2, 2015 made the response timely even though plaintiff did not receive the mailing until March 5, 2015, see Pl. Mot. at 1.

Plaintiff contends that defense counsel has been submitting documents that bear one date, stamping the envelope with a later date, and waiting until a still-later date to actually send the documents to him. See Third Pl. Ltr. at 1. Defense counsel has denied engaging in such activity, see Third Def. Ltr. at 1, and there is no evidence to support plaintiff's accusations.

Plaintiff specifies the grounds upon which he believes he is entitled to prevail for defendants’ Rule 33.2 responses, see Pl. Mot. at 3-4, but no other discovery responses.

This interrogatory shall be construed as follows: “List all dates following the 2/27/12 incident that defendants did not come to work because of injuries alleged to have been received during the incident.”