*1 Presently before the Court are various discovery Motions. Dkt. Nos. 40, 41, 47, & 48. A conference was held on October 25, 2021, wherein all parties appeared and had a full opportunity to present their respective positions on the pending Motions, as well as other discovery issues. At the close of argument, I issued a decision in which, after applying the requisite legal standards, I granted in part and denied in part the Motions pending before the Court. I also provided further detail regarding my reasoning and addressed the specific issues raised by the parties. A summary of the holdings made by the Court is as follows:

With regard to Plaintiffs’ discovery demands for records, tapes, videos, or other documents that relate in any way to the subject matter of the Complaint, the Court finds that these demands are overly broad and not proportionally relevant to the needs of this case. See Gropper v. David Ellis Real Est., L.P., 2014 WL 518234, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2014) (collecting cases). However, it appears that defense counsel has a recording which relates to Plaintiff Frank's July 2018 complaint against a fellow employee, and in the Court's view this should be produced. Defense counsel is therefore directed to provide that tape or a copy of the recording to Plaintiffs’ counsel on or before November 1, 2021.

Next, Plaintiffs have requested to review personnel files of three individuals: Robert Nason, David Lapell, and Charlene Wells. It is represented that these were individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff Julia Barton and who were granted light-duty accommodations. Defense counsel had agreed to produce the personnel files once a protective order was put in place, but it appears that Plaintiffs’ counsel never responded to this request. Balancing Plaintiffs’ need for this information against the privacy interests of the three employees in question, the Court directs defense counsel to provide a proposed protective order to chambers on or before November 1, 2021. The Court will sign that order, at which point defense counsel shall immediately provide the requested personnel files, which are to be held pursuant to the terms of the protective order.

The third general matter that is the subject of the present discovery dispute is the County's light-duty procedures, if any. During the conference, counsel for Warren County represented to the Court and opposing counsel that all records with regard to any light-duty policy have already been provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel different answers to these discovery demands. Counsel are, of course, reminded of their duty to supplement discovery responses if new or additional information becomes known.

Fourth, Plaintiffs’ counsel has propounded numerous interrogatories and discovery demands relating to electronic discovery. Counsel for Warren County notes that all existing records regarding the analysis of Plaintiffs’ work performance, any request for light-duty, and treatment of pregnant employees, have already been provided. The County has no formal retention policy regarding electronic data. In light of the representations made during the course of the conference, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Letter-Motion to Compel additional responses.

*2 Fifth, Plaintiffs make a request for all diaries, calendars, journals, notes, or computer entries from five Warren County employees: Former Sheriff York, Sheriff LaFarr, Al Maday, Daniel Clifford, Wayne Farmer, Gary Millis, Marlo Barboza, and Jackie Bachem. Such a sweeping request calls for irrelevant and personal information, and therefore the Defendant's objection is well-founded. New Falls Corp. v. Soni, 2020 WL 2836790, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020), review denied sub nom. New Falls Corporaton v. Soni, 2021 WL 878742 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2021) (“[T]he Court will not blindly rubber stamp Plaintiff's requests for documents when a portion of the requests, on their face, appear to be irrelevant, overly broad, and duplicative of discovery already exchanged...”). Insofar as Plaintiffs are requesting computer data or other information concerning the exact location of particular individuals at the Facility, the Court denies this request as not proportionally relevant to the needs of the case, especially in light of other discovery. As represented by defense counsel, if the information sought is related to an alleged improper cell search by Plaintiff Frank, or other misconduct, Warren County has already provided all documents it has associated with these issues.

Finally, Plaintiffs have requested a list of employees of the Warren County Sheriff's Department who were employed at the jail from 2014 up until the present time. In making that request they note that some individuals are unknown to Plaintiffs because they worked on separate shifts, or were referred to by a nickname or simply a last name, and they need a way to establish and identify those potential witnesses. Defense counsel indicates that the County does not have a ready method of producing a list of the requested employees during a particular period of time. It is not clear to the Court as to the exact impediment for producing such a list, but the Court does agree that the timeframe requested is much too broad. Accordingly, the Court directs that defense counsel provide a list of the individuals employed by the Sheriff's Department during 2017 and 2018 if that can be done, or if such a list cannot be generated, to provide a written explanation to the Court as to why not.

Defense counsel indicates that Defendant is also missing certain documents for which discovery demands were made. In particular, defense counsel indicates that there are HIPAA authorizations that have not been provided; that there is certain tax information that is also missing; that documentation provided by counsel concerning Plaintiffs’ attempts to mitigate their damages is incomplete; and that certain discovery was produced in a form that is unreadable. Plaintiffs’ counsel affirms that all appropriate authorizations for medical records have been provided. If that is not the case, Plaintiffs are directed to provide appropriate authorizations by November 1, 2021. Regarding tax documents, counsel notes that one of the Plaintiffs has had some difficulty retrieving certain years from her tax preparer, but the years that she has have been provided. This explanation is understandable, and Plaintiff is directed to continue requesting the information and to provide it as soon as she obtains it. On the issue of mitigation, Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that his client had been using the “Indeed” website as an effort to regain employment, and she is now in fact reemployed. Defense counsel acknowledges this but indicates that the digital data that she was provided does not allow access to the relevant information. Counsel are directed to work together to solve this problem, and in the event that a readable electronic version of the information cannot be provided, Plaintiffs’ counsel is to utilize his clients records and either provide the documentation that she is able to access through the links described at the conference, or provide detail of the date and names of jobs that Plaintiff applied for and the result. As for the unreadable documents produced, counsel are to work together so that Defendant is provided with the responses in a readable form by November 1, 2021.

*3 The Court has considered all of the remaining requests to compel discovery and hereby denies those requests. In addition to the objections of overbreath and relevance raised by counsel, the Court is also not convinced that the requesting party utilized good-faith efforts to narrow the dispute or otherwise resolve it prior to making the present request. Further, Plaintiffs’ October 21, 2021 request to take depositions and to submit additional discovery requests is hereby denied in light of the fact that Plaintiffs had never served a deposition notice on defense counsel at any time prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline, and in light of the resolution of the outstanding discovery disputes as set forth above.

As a final matter, the Court grants defense counsel's request for additional time to submit any dispositive motion until November 26, 2021.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ Letter-Motions to Compel Discovery, Dkt. Nos. 40 & 47, are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth above; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant's Letter-Motion to Compel Discovery, Dkt. No. 36, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth above; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant's letter request to extend the time period to file dispositive motions, Dkt. No. 46, is GRANTED, and that deadline is now set for November 26, 2021; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.